On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:40:50PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:06:31PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 07:04:18PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > >> >> Because usb_hcd_submit_urb is in the hotest path of usb core, > >> >> so use percpu counter to count URB instead of using atomic variable > >> >> because atomic operations are much slower than percpu operations. > >> >> > >> >> Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> --- > >> >> drivers/usb/core/hcd.c | 4 ++-- > >> >> drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c | 7 ++++++- > >> >> drivers/usb/core/usb.c | 9 ++++++++- > >> >> drivers/usb/core/usb.h | 1 + > >> >> include/linux/usb.h | 2 +- > >> >> 5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > And this really speeds things up? Exactly what does it? > >> > > >> > And it's not that atomic operations are "slower", it's just that the > >> > >> For SMP, atomic_inc/atomic_dec are much slower than percpu > >> variable inc/dec, see 4.1(Why Isn’t Concurrent Count-ing Trivial?) > >> of [1]. > >> > >> However, it is slower: on a Intel Core Duo laptop, it is about six > >> times slower than non-atomic increment when a single thread > >> is incrementing, and more than ten times slower if two threads > >> are incrementing. > >> > >> Considered that most of desktop & laptop are SMP now, and with > >> USB3.0, the submitted URBs per second may reach tens of thousand > >> or more, and we can remove the atomic inc/dec operations in the hot > >> path, so why don't do it? > > > > Because you really didn't do it, there are lots of other atomic > > operations on that same path. > > Not lots in the path of usbcore. Did you look close? I see 2 more right there in the context of your patch alone. One you try to take care of later (but just do the same thing, no real change), the other you don't address at all. > > And, thens of thousands of urbs should be trivial, did you measure this > > to see if it changed anything? I'm not taking patches like this that > > are not quantifiable, sorry. > > The number may be too trivial to measure, but I will try to test > with perf. If it's too trivial to measure, then I can't accept the patch, nor should you expect it to be accepted, right? > > The gating problem in USB right now is the hardware, it's the slowest > > thing, not the kernel, from everything I have ever tested, or seen. > > The problem may not speed up usb performance, but might decrease > CPU utilization a bit, or cache miss. Do you have proof of this? Without that, why would you even want someone to accept such a patch? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
