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

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> Hi Srivatsa,
> 
> I can try to run some of our stress tests on your patches.

Great!

> Have you
> got a git tree that i can pull ?
> 

Unfortunately, no, none at the moment..  :-(

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/