mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] kernel/rcu: add kfree_rcu
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:22:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4960A9E8.3090309@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <496073AB.2030400@cn.fujitsu.com>

Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> I have not posted it. -:)
>   
Could you post it?

Paul: What would break if we stop processing rcu entries in (cpu) order?

The head->func(head) in rcu_do_batch() is probably a nightmare for the 
branch target predictor.

What about:
- shrinking struct rcu_head to just a pointer (let's start with the goodie)
- Adding a register_rcu_callback() function.
It allocates the per-cpu storage for the rcu grace period lists.
Seperate lists for each registered callback - thus no need to copy the 
callback target into each rcu_head structure.
It returns a pointer/handle to these lists.
- call_rcu gets that handle instead of the plain function pointer.
- rcu_do_batch enumerates all registered callbacks. Thus first all 
callback_struct->func(head) calls for the first registered callback, 
then the calls for the 2nd callback, etc.
Better for the icache, better for the branch predictor.

Paul: Do you have a test case that is suitable for benchmarking rcu?
Any workloads were rcu appears significantly in oprofile?
And: Do you know how many rcu entries are typically alive? How much 
memory is used for the function pointers?

--
    Manfred


  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-04 12:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-02 11:25 Manfred Spraul
2009-01-02 18:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-03 14:59   ` Manfred Spraul
2009-01-03 23:46     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-04  5:50   ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-01-04 19:48     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05  2:48       ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-01-05  4:40         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06 22:17           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05  7:15       ` Manfred Spraul
2009-01-04  5:39 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-01-04  7:07   ` Manfred Spraul
2009-01-04  8:30     ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-01-04 12:22       ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2009-01-04 20:06         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-12 17:43           ` Paul E. McKenney

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=4960A9E8.3090309@colorfullife.com \
    --to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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

Powered by JetHome