Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:57:41 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] BH removal text |
| |
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 10:22:19AM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > Even if you replace timemr_bh() with a tasklet, you still need > to take the global_bh_lock to ensure that timers don't race with > single-threaded BH processing in drivers. I wrote this patch [included] > to get rid of timer_bh in Ingo's smptimers, but it acquires > global_bh_lock as well as net_bh_lock, the latter to ensure > that some older protocol code that expected serialization of > NET_BH and timers work correctly (see deliver_to_old_ones()). > They need to be cleaned up too. > My patch of course was experimental to see what is needed to > get rid of timer_bh. It needs some cleanup itself ;-)
It runs here. New profile (hopefully I'll get some fixed-up stuff like oprofile, kernprof, & lockmeter to play with at some point):
14465232 total 114.2269 10694436 mod_timer 33420.1125 1089589 __global_cli 4005.8419 961598 timer_bh 1059.0286 453404 do_gettimeofday 3333.8529 440086 __wake_up 2340.8830 298729 schedule 268.6412 294945 default_idle 5672.0192 155762 do_softirq 708.0091 43256 tasklet_hi_action 220.6939 12724 system_call 289.1818 mod_timer is 75%, __global_cli() appears to be 7.5%, and timer_bh() is 6.6%... I wonder what happened to the plot for lockless gettimeofday(), esp as that accounts for 3.1% here...
It's still spinning with interrupts off for several minutes at a time.
Cheers, Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |