From: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] slub: Only IPI CPUs that have per cpu obj to flush
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:57:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOtvUMf1COVDUv6MCsPAt806kcRfzSmeUqOZR_XWy-6dx=ZqcA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJd=RBCkHe14gXBh3GyYyTM8dvvUam_Har5BpUU1WuG9Spd-3g@mail.gmail.com>
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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-14 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-13 10:17 [PATCH v3 0/5] Reduce cross CPU IPI interference Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-13 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] smp: Introduce a generic on_each_cpu_mask function Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-15 15:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-11-22 10:06 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-13 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] arm: Move arm over to generic on_each_cpu_mask Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-13 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] tile: Move tile to use " Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-13 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] slub: Only IPI CPUs that have per cpu obj to flush Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-13 12:20 ` Hillf Danton
2011-11-13 14:57 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-14 13:19 ` Hillf Danton
2011-11-14 13:57 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef [this message]
2011-11-15 15:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-11-13 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] mm: Only IPI CPUs to drain local pages if they exist Gilad Ben-Yossef
2011-11-15 16:00 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAOtvUMf1COVDUv6MCsPAt806kcRfzSmeUqOZR_XWy-6dx=ZqcA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gilad@benyossef.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox