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 S1753031AbdHOSkp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:40:45 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56080 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752785AbdHOSkk (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:40:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:40:40 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
Cc: qiaozhou <qiaozhou@asrmicro.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, sboyd@codeaurora.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Wang Wilbur <wilburwang@asrmicro.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com
Subject: Re: [Question]: try to fix contention between expire_timers and
 try_to_del_timer_sync
Message-ID: <20170815184039.GE10801@arm.com>
References: <3d2459c7-defd-a47e-6cea-007c10cecaac@asrmicro.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707261548560.2186@nanos>
 <dcb18367-c747-96a8-9927-d8ba6954c496@asrmicro.com>
 <e1cc02c5e7dfd4d6bec937b6dc97bfc7@codeaurora.org>
 <20170728092831.GA24839@arm.com>
 <2aa9684cf9c889ee9fdc8550b4388af6@codeaurora.org>
 <20170731131321.GB1737@arm.com>
 <a858eaf3973979d0759ee016d39887e3@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a858eaf3973979d0759ee016d39887e3@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Vikram,

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 04:25:12PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> On 2017-07-31 06:13, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> >>On 2017-07-28 02:28, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:10:34PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>This does seem to help. Here's some data after 5 runs with and without
> >>the
> >>patch.
> >
> >Blimey, that does seem to make a difference. Shame it's so ugly! Would you
> >be able to experiment with other values for CPU_RELAX_WFE_THRESHOLD? I had
> >it set to 10000 in the diff I posted, but that might be higher than
> >optimal.
> >It would be interested to see if it correlates with num_possible_cpus()
> >for the highly contended case.
> >
> >Will
> 
> Sorry for the late response - I should hopefully have some more data with
> different thresholds before the week is finished or on Monday.

Did you get anywhere with the threshold heuristic?

Will