On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 07:14:04AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > Hi Boqun, > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:00:47PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > Overall it looks promising to me, but I would like to see how it > > performs in the environment of Breno. Also as Paul always reminds me: > > buggy code usually run faster, so please take a look in case I'm missing > > something ;-) Thanks! > > Thanks for the patchset. I've confirmed that the wins are large on my > environment, but, at the same magnitute of synchronize_rcu_expedited(). > > Here are the numbers I got: > > 6.15-rc1 (upstream) > # time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: > mq > real 0m3.986s > user 0m0.001s > sys 0m0.093s > > Your patchset on top of 6.15-rc1 > # time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: > mq > real 0m0.072s > user 0m0.001s > sys 0m0.070s > > > My original proposal of using synchronize_rcu_expedited()[1] > # time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: > mq > real 0m0.074s > user 0m0.001s > sys 0m0.061s > > Link: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250321-lockdep-v1-1-78b732d19...@debian.org/ [1] > Could you please also do the test of fist scenario with a regular synchronize_rcu() but switch to its faster variant:
echo 1 > /sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_normal_wake_from_gp and run the test. If you have a time. Thank you! -- Vlad Rezki
