On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > You guys might need to agree on the definition of "good" here. Or maybe > > understand the differences in your respective platforms' definitions of > > "good". ;-) > > > Indeed. Bad is when once per-millisecond infinitely :) At least in such use > workload a can detect a power delta and power gain. Anyway, below is a new > trace where i do not use "flush" variant for the kvfree_rcu(): > > <snip> > 1. Home screen swipe: > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1792.767750: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1003 bl=10 > rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 1792.771717: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=934 bl=10 > rcuop/3-40 [001] d..1 1794.811816: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1508 bl=11 > rcuop/1-26 [003] d..1 1797.116382: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2127 bl=16 > rcuop/4-48 [001] d..1 1797.124422: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=95 bl=10 > rcuop/5-55 [002] d..1 1797.124731: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=143 bl=10 > rcuop/6-62 [005] d..1 1798.911719: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=132 bl=10 > rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 1803.003966: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3797 bl=29 > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1803.004707: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2969 bl=23 > 2. App launches: > rcuop/4-48 [005] d..1 1831.087612: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6141 bl=47 > rcuop/7-69 [007] d..1 1831.095578: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5464 bl=42 > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1832.703571: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8461 bl=66 > rcuop/0-15 [004] d..1 1833.731603: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2548 bl=19 > rcuop/1-26 [006] d..1 1833.743691: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2567 bl=20 > rcuop/2-33 [006] d..1 1833.744005: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2359 bl=18 > rcuop/3-40 [006] d..1 1833.744286: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3681 bl=28 > rcuop/4-48 [002] d..1 1838.079777: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10444 bl=81 > rcuop/7-69 [001] d..1 1838.080375: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=12572 bl=98 > <...>-62 [002] d..1 1838.080646: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=14135 bl=110 > rcuop/6-62 [000] d..1 1838.087722: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10839 bl=84 > <...>-62 [003] d..1 1839.227022: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1834 bl=14 > <...>-26 [001] d..1 1839.963315: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5769 bl=45 > rcuop/2-33 [001] d..1 1839.966485: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3789 bl=29 > <...>-40 [001] d..1 1839.966596: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6425 bl=50 > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1840.541272: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=825 bl=10 > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1840.547724: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=44 bl=10 > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1841.075759: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=516 bl=10 > rcuop/0-15 [002] d..1 1841.695716: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6312 bl=49 > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1841.709714: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=39 bl=10 > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1843.112442: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=16007 bl=125 > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1843.115444: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=7901 bl=61 > rcuop/6-62 [001] dn.1 1843.123983: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8427 bl=65 > rcuop/6-62 [006] d..1 1843.412383: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=981 bl=10 > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1844.659812: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1851 bl=14 > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1844.667790: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=135 bl=10 > <snip> > > it is much more better. But. As i wrote earlier there is a patch that i have submitted > some time ago improving kvfree_rcu() batching: > > <snip> > commit 51824b780b719c53113dc39e027fbf670dc66028 > Author: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu Jun 30 18:33:35 2022 +0200 > > rcu/kvfree: Update KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES interval > > Currently the monitor work is scheduled with a fixed interval of HZ/20, > which is roughly 50 milliseconds. The drawback of this approach is > low utilization of the 512 page slots in scenarios with infrequence > kvfree_rcu() calls. For example on an Android system: > <snip> > > The trace that i posted was taken without it. And if I am not getting too confused, that patch is now in mainline. So it does make sense to rely on it, then. ;-) Thanx, Paul
