On Saturday 12 January 2008 18:51:35 Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:37:59AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > And yes, the
> > > network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing
> > > that
> > > is a little more involved.
> >
> > ... but the correct
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:37:59AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > And yes, the
> > network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing
> > that
> > is a little more involved.
>
> ... but the correct solution.
There has to be at least 1 synchronize_rcu() or equivalent in the
On Saturday 12 January 2008 10:23:11 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
> > approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu().
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:23:11AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
> > approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
> approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu(). The
> motivation is that an otherwise idle system takes about 3 ticks
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
Hello folks,
I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu(). The
motivation is that an otherwise idle system takes about 3 ticks per
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:23:11AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
Hello folks,
I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu(). The
On Saturday 12 January 2008 10:23:11 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
Hello folks,
I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu(). The
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:37:59AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
And yes, the
network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing
that
is a little more involved.
... but the correct solution.
There has to be at least 1 synchronize_rcu() or equivalent in the
On Saturday 12 January 2008 18:51:35 Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:37:59AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
And yes, the
network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing
that
is a little more involved.
... but the correct solution.
There
> And yes, the
> network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing that
> is a little more involved.
... but the correct solution.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
Hello folks,
I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu(). The
motivation is that an otherwise idle system takes about 3 ticks per network
interface in unregister_netdev() due to multiple calls to
Hello folks,
I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu(). The
motivation is that an otherwise idle system takes about 3 ticks per network
interface in unregister_netdev() due to multiple calls to
And yes, the
network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing that
is a little more involved.
... but the correct solution.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
14 matches
Mail list logo
