From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C45C43331 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCCD214D8 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389365AbfKGQ2q (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:28:46 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:48580 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726231AbfKGQ2p (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:28:45 -0500 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iSkeI-0001HM-HV; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:28:42 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:28:42 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Dennis Zhou Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu-refcount: Use normal instead of RCU-sched" Message-ID: <20191107162842.2qgd3db2cjmmsxeh@linutronix.de> References: <20191002112252.ro7wpdylqlrsbamc@linutronix.de> <20191107091319.6zf5tmdi54amtann@linutronix.de> <20191107161749.GA93945@dennisz-mbp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191107161749.GA93945@dennisz-mbp> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019-11-07 11:17:49 [-0500], Dennis Zhou wrote: > Hello, Hi, > I just want to clarify a little bit. Is this patch aimed at fixing an > issue with RT kernels specifically? Due to the implications of preempt_disable() on RT kernels it fixes problems with RT kernels. > It'd also be nice to have the > numbers as well as if the kernel was RT or non-RT. The benchmark was done on a CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel. As said in the commit log, the numbers were mostly the same, I can re-run the test and post numbers if you want them. This patch makes no difference on PREEMPT_NONE or PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY kernels. > Thanks, > Dennis Sebastian