On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:32:19 +0300
Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27/03/2017 4:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
> >> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
> >>> of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls. But it is slower, using numbers
> >>> from [1] (19 vs 11 cycles), thus the expected cycles saving is 38-19=19.
> >>>
> >>> The problematic part of using local_bh_enable is that this adds a
> >>> softirq/bottom-halves rescheduling point (as it checks for pending
> >>> BHs). Thus, this might affects real workloads.
> >>
> >> I implemented this solution in patch below... and tested it on mlx5 at
> >> 50G with manually disabled driver-page-recycling. It works for me.
> >>
> >> To Mel, that do you prefer... a partial-revert or something like this?
> >>
> >
> > If Tariq confirms it works for him as well, this looks far safer patch
>
> Great.
> I will test Jesper's patch today in the afternoon.
Good to hear :-)
> > than having a dedicate IRQ-safe queue. Your concern about the BH
> > scheduling point is valid but if it's proven to be a problem, there is
> > still the option of a partial revert.
I wanted to evaluate my own BH scheduling point concern, but I could
not, because I ran into a softirq acct regression (which I bisected
see[1]). AFAIK this should not affect Tariq's multi-TCP-stream test
(netperf TCP stream testing works fine on my testlab).
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170328101403.34a82fbf@xxxxxxxxxx
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
