Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:29:34 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Programmatic nestable expedited grace periods |
| |
On 2/20/2015 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:32:39AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>>>>> Does it really make a machine boot much faster? Why are people using >>>>>> synchronous gp primitives if they care about speed? Should we not fix >>>>>> that instead? >>>>> >>>>> The report I heard was that it provided 10-15% faster boot times. >>>> >>>> That's not insignificant; got more details? I think we should really >>>> look at why people are using the sync primitives. >>> >>> I must defer to the people who took the exact measurements. >>> >>> But yes, once I have that info, I should add it to the commit log. >> >> so the two most obvious cases are >> >> Registering sysrq keys ... even when the old key code had no handler >> (have a patch pending for this) >> >> registering idle handlers >> (this is more tricky, it's very obvious abuse but the fix is less clear) >> >> there's a few others as well that I'm chasing down... >> .. but the flip side, prior to running ring 3 code, why NOT do fast expedites? > > It would be good to have before-and-after measurements of actual > boot time. Are these numbers available?
I'll make you pretty graphs when I get home from collab summit, which should be later today
| |