On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:44:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:31:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:27:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > > > Or is the idea to time the kfree_rcu() loop separately? (I don't
> > > >
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:31:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:27:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > > Or is the idea to time the kfree_rcu() loop separately? (I don't see
> > > > > any such separate timing, though.)
> > > >
> > > > The kmalloc()
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:27:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Or is the idea to time the kfree_rcu() loop separately? (I don't see
> > > > any such separate timing, though.)
> > >
> > > The kmalloc() times are included within the kfree loop. The timing of
> > > kfree_rcu() is
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:50:56PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > + do {
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < kfree_alloc_num; i++) {
> > > > > > + alloc_ptrs[i] = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
> > > > > > kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > + if
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:51:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 03:23:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > [snip]
> > > > > @@ -592,6 +593,175 @@ rcu_perf_shutdown(void *arg)
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > +
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 03:23:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> > [snip]
> > > > @@ -592,6 +593,175 @@ rcu_perf_shutdown(void *arg)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * kfree_rcu performance tests: Start a kfree_rcu loop on all CPUs for
> > > >
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 03:33:27PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:58:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:04:11PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > This test runs kfree_rcu in a loop to measure performance of the new
> > >
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:58:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:04:11PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This test runs kfree_rcu in a loop to measure performance of the new
> > kfree_rcu batching functionality.
>
> kfree_rcu().
Fixed.
> > The following
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:04:11PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This test runs kfree_rcu in a loop to measure performance of the new
> kfree_rcu batching functionality.
kfree_rcu().
> The following table shows results when booting with arguments:
> rcuperf.kfree_loops=20
This test runs kfree_rcu in a loop to measure performance of the new
kfree_rcu batching functionality.
The following table shows results when booting with arguments:
rcuperf.kfree_loops=20 rcuperf.kfree_alloc_num=1000 rcuperf.kfree_rcu_test=1
In addition, rcuperf.kfree_no_batch is used to
10 matches
Mail list logo
