lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/5] slub: Only IPI CPUs that have per cpu obj to flush
From
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com> wrote:
...
>>> Perhaps, the technique of local_cpu_mask defined in kernel/sched_rt.c
>>> could be used to replace the above atomic allocation.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to review my patch :-)
>>
>> That is indeed the direction I went with inthe previous iteration of
>> this patch, with the small change that because of observing that the
>> allocation will only actually occurs for CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y which by
>> definition are systems with lots and lots of CPUs and, it is actually
>> better to allocate the cpumask per kmem_cache rather then per CPU,
>> since on system where it matters we are bound to have more CPUs (e.g.
>> 4096) then kmem_caches (~160). See
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/23/151.
>>
>> I then went a head and further optimized the code to only incur the
>> memory overhead of allocating those cpumasks for CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y
>> systems. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/23/152.
>>
>> As you can see from the discussion that evolved, there seems to be an
>> agreement that the code complexity overhead involved is simply not
>> worth it for what is, unlike sched_rt, a rather esoteric case and one
>> where allocation failure is easily dealt with.
>>
> Even with the introduced overhead of allocation, IPIs could not go down
> as much as we wish, right?
>

My apologies, but I don't think I follow you through -

If processor A needs processor B to do something, an IPI is the right
thing to do. Let's call them useful IPIs.

What I am trying to tackle is the places where processor B doesn't
really have anything to
do and processor A is simply blindly sending IPIs to the whole system.
I call them useless IPIs.

I don't see a reason why *useless* IPIs can go to zero, or very close
to that. Useful IPIs are fine :-)

Thanks,
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
gilad@benyossef.com
Israel Cell: +972-52-8260388
US Cell: +1-973-8260388
http://benyossef.com

"Unfortunately, cache misses are an equal opportunity pain provider."
-- Mike Galbraith, LKML
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-14 14:59    [W:0.042 / U:3.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site