> Yasunori Goto wrote:Yeap. It's the one of (big) cons. Agree. To tell the truth, I tried hackbench with 3rd patch which add rcu_read_lock in hot-path before this post to make rough estimate its impact. %hackbench 100 process 2000 without patch. 39.93 with patch 39.99 (Both is 10 times avarage) I guess this result has effect of disable preemption. So, throughput looks not so bad, but probably, latency would be worse as you mind. Kame-san advised me I should take more other benchmarks which can get memory performance. I'll do it next week. I thought it at first, but are there the following worst case? CPU 0 CPU 1 ------------------------------------------------------- __alloc_pages() parsing_zonelist() : enter page_reclarim() sleep (and remember zone) : : update zonelist and node_online_map with stop_machine_run() free pgdat(). remove the Node electrically. wake up and touch remembered zone, but it is removed (Oops!!!) Anyway, I'm happy if there is better way than my poor idea. :-) Thanks for your comment. -- Yasunori Goto --
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Faik Uygur | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1 |
| Ingo Molnar | [patch 02/13] syslets: add syslet.h include file, user API/ABI definitions |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: Data corruption issue with splice() on 2.6.27.10 |
| Steven Rostedt | Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug? |
