Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #85692
| Path | csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod |
|---|---|
| From | Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> |
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.kernel |
| Subject | Bug#972709: Wishlist/RFC: Change to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE in linux-image-cloud-* |
| Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:40:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Kibcd-zW2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <B2QjL-7oT-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <B3ged-64a-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Be61P-6mT-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Be6bv-6q4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <B2QjL-7oT-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Be7qV-75I-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <B2QjL-7oT-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Be9j3-8cF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <B2QjL-7oT-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Be9j3-8cF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| X-Original-To | Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org>, 972709@bugs.debian.org |
| X-Mailbox-Line | From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Thu Feb 20 09:33:10 2025 |
| Old-Return-Path | <debbugs@buxtehude.debian.org> |
| X-Spam-Flag | NO |
| X-Spam-Score | -3.899 |
| Reply-To | Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>, 972709@bugs.debian.org |
| Resent-To | debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org |
| Resent-Cc | Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org> |
| X-Debian-Pr-Message | followup 972709 |
| X-Debian-Pr-Package | src:linux |
| X-Debian-Pr-Source | linux |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Disposition | inline |
| X-Debian-User | carnil |
| X-Debian-Message | from BTS |
| X-Mailing-List | <debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/1888244 |
| List-ID | <debian-bugs-dist.lists.debian.org> |
| List-URL | <https://lists.debian.org/debian-bugs-dist/> |
| Approved | robomod@news.nic.it |
| Lines | 36 |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
| Sender | robomod@news.nic.it |
| X-Original-Cc | Flavio Veloso Soares <flaviovs@magnux.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
| X-Original-Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:31:43 +0100 |
| X-Original-Message-ID | <Z7b2fxgdARSYD99Y@eldamar.lan> |
| X-Original-References | <b7aad91f-31c1-89cf-075a-56402f4b81ce@magnux.com> <303ebe0e4f9a10001c183f6eb6c789aa930c82f7.camel@decadent.org.uk> <e95d04dd-8513-cf52-c1d6-b608d053b3ac@magnux.com> <52725d08fdaaffb773dc4955a4efc8f8ac22a40c.camel@decadent.org.uk> <b7aad91f-31c1-89cf-075a-56402f4b81ce@magnux.com> <0fa1b744-11a4-d459-06e1-2d49e3276ec8@magnux.com> <b7aad91f-31c1-89cf-075a-56402f4b81ce@magnux.com> <20201123014922.GA26417@doom.morgul.net> <b7aad91f-31c1-89cf-075a-56402f4b81ce@magnux.com> <20201123014922.GA26417@doom.morgul.net> |
| Xref | csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1234173 linux.debian.kernel:85692 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
Hi, On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 05:49:22PM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 03:53:32PM -0800, Flavio Veloso Soares wrote: > > Unfortunately, I couldn't find many comprehensive benchmarks of kernel > > CONFIG_PREEMPT* options. The one at > > [1]https://www.codeblueprint.co.uk/2019/12/23/linux-preemption-latency-throughput.html > > seems to be very thorough, > > > > [...] > > > > Not particularly. I'm used to latency benchmarks showing e.g. average, > > 90th percentile, 99th percentile, as well as worst. > > I don't think Ben was talking about specific benchmarks. The web page > you cites lacks basic measurements one would expect to see from *any* > meaningful performance benchmark. Comparing maximum latency is fine, > but it's not really relevant by itself. If a configuration change > improves the worst case (100th percentile) but negatively impacts the > 50th percentile, is that a change worth making? Maybe. But without > having that data at all, the benchmark really isn't worth much at all. > > It's totally reasonable for us to consider making this change, but we > should have comprehensive data about the impact of doing so. What > impact does the change have on different classes of workloads? e.g. > high tps, CPU-bound, IO-bound, etc. It's entirely possible that the > proposed change improves performance under certain workloads, but > negatively impacts others. Without knowing the impact in more in more > detail, which would allow us to evaluate the tradeoffs, I don't think > there's a compelling reason to make a change. I think with setting CONFIG_PREEMPT_LAZY since 6.13.2-1~exp1 we can close this wishlist bug with that version? Regards, Salvatore
Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Bug#972709: Wishlist/RFC: Change to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE in linux-image-cloud-* Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-02-20 10:40 +0100
csiph-web