On 28/03/2017 9:24 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:05:12 +0300
Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28/03/2017 10:32 AM, Tariq Toukan 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.
It looks very good!
I get line-rate (94Gbits/sec) with 8 streams, in comparison to less than
55Gbits/sec before.
Just confirming, this is when you have disabled mlx5 driver
page-recycling, right?
Right.
This is a great result!
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.
--
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>
