From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: dipankar@in.ibm.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about usage of RCU in the input layer
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:31:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090320143104.GA6698@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090320065058.65d01771@infradead.org>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 06:50:58AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:45:41 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > single CPU is soooo last decade ;-)
> > > But seriously I no longer have systems that aren't dual core or SMT
> > > in some form...
> >
> > OK, I will ask the stupid question...
> >
> > Why not delay bringing up the non-boot CPUs until later in boot?
>
> that'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater... I'm trying to use
> the other cpus to do some of the boot work (so that the total goes
> faster); not using the other cpus would be counter productive to that.
> (As is just sitting in synchronize_rcu() when the other cpu is
> working.. hence this discussion ;-)
OK, so you are definitely running multiple CPUs when the offending
synchronize_rcu() executes, then?
If so, here are some follow-on questions:
1. How many synchronize_rcu() calls are you seeing on the
critical boot path and what value of HZ are you running?
If each synchronize_rcu() is taking (say) tens of jiffies, then,
as Peter Zijlstra notes earlier in this thread, we need to focus
on what is taking too long to get through its RCU read-side
critical sections. Otherwise, if each synchronize_rcu() is
in the 3-5 jiffy range, I may finally be forced to create an
expedited version of the synchronize_rcu() API.
2. If expediting is required, then the code calling synchronize_rcu()
might or might not have any idea whether or not expediting is
appropriate. If it does not, then we would need some sort of way
to tell synchronize_rcu() that it should act more aggressively,
perhaps /proc flag or kernel global variable indicating that
boot is in progress.
No, we do not want to make synchronize_rcu() aggressive all the
time, as this would harm performance and energy efficiency in
the normal runtime situation.
So, if it turns out that synchronize_rcu()'s caller does not
know whether or not expediting is appropriate, can the boot path
manipulate such a flag or variable?
3. Which RCU implementation are you using? CONFIG_CLASSIC_RCU,
CONFIG_TREE_RCU, or CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-20 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-19 4:58 Question about usage of RCU in the input layer Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-19 7:23 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2009-03-19 14:02 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-19 8:56 ` Dipankar Sarma
2009-03-19 14:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-20 2:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-20 3:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-20 4:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-20 5:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-20 6:01 ` Dipankar Sarma
2009-03-20 6:01 ` Dipankar Sarma
2009-03-20 6:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-20 6:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-20 13:50 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-20 14:31 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-03-20 18:13 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-21 1:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-21 4:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-21 18:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-21 19:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-21 20:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-21 20:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-21 21:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-21 21:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22 3:40 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22 3:40 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22 4:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22 4:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22 4:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22 4:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22 5:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22 5:53 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22 16:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22 19:46 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22 20:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22 22:44 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22 23:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22 23:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-23 1:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-03 1:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-21 21:13 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-20 22:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-21 5:46 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2009-03-21 9:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-21 9:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-21 18:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-21 18:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090320143104.GA6698@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.