From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S965823AbcAZScC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:32:02 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:36605 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S967379AbcAZSbV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:31:21 -0500
Message-ID: <1453833078.3534.59.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: fast path cycle muncher (vmstat: make vmstat_updater deferrable
 again and shut down on idle)
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:31:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601261022140.27957@east.gentwo.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601210941540.7063@east.gentwo.org>
	 <20160121165148.GF29520@dhcp22.suse.cz>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601211130580.7741@east.gentwo.org>
	 <20160122140418.GB19465@dhcp22.suse.cz>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601220950290.17929@east.gentwo.org>
	 <20160122161201.GC19465@dhcp22.suse.cz>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601221046020.17984@east.gentwo.org>
	 <1453566115.3529.8.camel@gmail.com> <20160125174224.GH23934@dhcp22.suse.cz>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601251152290.19487@east.gentwo.org>
	 <20160125201319.GA19020@dhcp22.suse.cz>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601261022140.27957@east.gentwo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 10:25 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > > Why would the deferring cause this overhead?
> > 
> > I guess the profile speaks for itself, doesn't it?
> 
> But the system is going idle? Why would this impact performance?

We enter/exit idle a lot.

Your reluctance to move it seem to suggest that 99.99% of CPUs on the
planet chewing up cycles (measured) doing what for most is useless work
on every micro-idle is a perfectly fine price to pay to ensure that
.01% (or whatever tiny minority) get what they want.

I disagree.  You're burning electrons for no benefit at all to me on my
box.  You want to do high speed trading, that's fine, but I expect my
box to be able to pop in and out of idle without having to pay a toll
to the high speed trading bandits of the world, thank you very much.

This specialty thing does not belong in the generic fast path.

	-Mike