Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755107AbbBTSjf (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:39:35 -0500 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:60239 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754734AbbBTSjd (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:39:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:39:27 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Programmatic nestable expedited grace periods Message-ID: <20150220183927.GP5745@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20150220050850.GA32639@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150220091107.GN21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150220163737.GL5745@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150220165409.GU5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150220171442.GM5745@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <54E76FB7.4060005@linux.intel.com> <20150220182745.GN5745@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <54E77D0E.6060000@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54E77D0E.6060000@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15022018-0021-0000-0000-000008B53CB3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1674 Lines: 42 On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:29:34AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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 Very good, looking forward to seeing them. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- 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/