Re: [PATCH v5 00/45] CPU hotplug: stop_machine()-free CPU hotplug

[Vincent Guittot]

Hi Srivatsa,

I can try to run some of our stress tests on your patches. Have you
got a git tree that i can pull ?

Regards,
Vincent

On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>>>> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>>>>                  Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c latency]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # online CPUs    Mainline (with stop-m/c)       This patchset (no stop-m/c)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       8                 17.04                          7.73
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      16                 18.05                          6.44
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      32                 17.31                          7.39
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      64                 32.40                          9.28
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     128                 98.23                          7.35
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice!
>>>>
>>>> Thank you :-)
>>>>
>>>>>  I wonder how the ARM guys feel with their quad-cpu systems...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would be definitely interesting to know :-)
>>>
>>> That depends what exactly you'd like tested (and how) and whether you'd
>>> like it to be a test-chip based quad core, or an OMAP dual-core SoC.
>>>
>>
>> The effect of stop_machine() doesn't really depend on the CPU architecture
>> used underneath or the platform. It depends only on the _number_ of
>> _logical_ CPUs used.
>>
>> And stop_machine() has 2 noticeable drawbacks:
>> 1. It makes the hotplug operation itself slow
>> 2. and it causes disruptions to the workloads running on the other
>> CPUs by hijacking the entire machine for significant amounts of time.
>>
>> In my experiments (mentioned above), I tried to measure how my patchset
>> improves (reduces) the duration of hotplug (CPU offline) itself. Which is
>> also slightly indicative of the impact it has on the rest of the system.
>>
>> But what would be nice to test, is a setup where the workloads running on
>> the rest of the system are latency-sensitive, and measure the impact of
>> CPU offline on them, with this patchset applied. That would tell us how
>> far is this useful in making CPU hotplug less disruptive on the system.
>>
>> Of course, it would be nice to also see whether we observe any reduction
>> in hotplug duration itself (point 1 above) on ARM platforms with lot
>> of CPUs. [This could potentially speed up suspend/resume, which is used
>> rather heavily on ARM platforms].
>>
>> The benefits from this patchset over mainline (both in terms of points
>> 1 and 2 above) is expected to increase, with increasing number of CPUs in
>> the system.
>>
>
> Adding Vincent to CC, who had previously evaluated the performance and
> latency implications of CPU hotplug on ARM platforms, IIRC.
>
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/