On 1/27/2011 5:30 PM, Paul Menage wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Bryan Huntsman<bryanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Tested-by: Mike Bohan<mbohan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I'm responding on Mike's behalf and adding him to this thread. This >> patch improves launch time of a test app from ~700ms to ~250ms on MSM, >> with much lower variance across tests. We also see UI latency >> improvements, but have not quantified the gains. >> > > Is this attached to the wrong patch? I'd thought that it was the other > patch (removing the rcu_synchronize()) that's the performance booster. > This one is more about preserving the semantics of the notification > API. You are correct. "[PATCH 2/2] cgroup: Remove call to synchronize_rcu in cgroup_attach_task" improved the performance. To be more correct, I tested this patch (eg. "cgroup: Set CGRP_RELEASABLE when adding to a cgroup") to the degree that it didn't appear to cause any stability or functional regressions when performing the simple benchmark procedure described above. I did also test "[PATCH 2/2] cgroup: Remove call to synchronize_rcu in cgroup_attach_task" independently of this patch to verify that it alone improved the performance. Thanks, Mike -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
