lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] Generic smp_call_function(), improvements, and smp_call_function_single()
On Thu, Mar 27 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > > i'd love to be able to run/pull something simple that enables me to
> > > replicate the measurements you did on a generic PC [without having
> > > to hit any real IO hardware which would put any context switching
> > > effects down into the noise category].
> >
> > You can pull io-cpu-affinity or io-cpu-affinity-kthread from
> > git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git - or just see the two attached
> > patches, apply either one to current -git to test it.
>
> another stupid question: what should i run in user-space to replicate
> your "3 usecs versus 2 usecs" result? io-affinity-ipi.patch seems to
> have no self-benchmarking capability at first sight. (I'd rather not try
> and cook up anything myself - i'd like to reproduce the workload you
> think is relevant for your IO affinity purposes.) Best would be to have
> a Kconfig based self-test that just runs during bootup if i boot a
> bzImage. (laziness rules - and this way i could also track performance
> regressions more easily, by looking at historic serial logs.)

I didn't do those numbers - Alan, when you timed the kthread vs ipi
"wake up", what did you use? I'm guessing some hacked in test, perhaps
you can pass that to Ingo?

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-27 13:37    [W:0.039 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site