From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] fixes and breakup of memory-barrier-decrease patch
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 12:08:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110521190830.GH2271@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110521142844.GA29813@elte.hu>
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 04:28:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ingo,
> >
> > This pull requests covers some RCU bug fixes and one patch rework.
> >
> > The first group breaks up the infamous now-reverted (but ultimately
> > vindicated) "Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof"
> > commit into five commits. These five commits immediately follow the
> > revert, and the diff across all six of these commits is empty, so that
> > the effect of the five commits is to revert the revert.
>
> But ... the regression that was observed with that commit needs to be fixed
> first, or not? In what way was the barrier commit vindicated?
>From what I can see, the hang was fixed by Frederic's patch at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/19/753. I was interpreting that as
vindication, perhaps ill-advisedly.
Yinghai said that he was still seeing a delay, adn that he was seeing
it even with the "Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal
proof" reverted: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/20/427. This hang seems
to happen when he uses gcc 4.5.0, but not when using gcc 4.5.1, assuming
I understood his sequence of emails. So I was interpreting that as
meaning that the delay was unlikely to be caused by that commit, probably
by one of the later commits.
I clearly need to figure out what is causing this delay. I asked Yinghai
to apply c7a378603 (Remove waitqueue usage for cpu, node, and boost kthreads)
from Peter Zijlstra because the long delays that Yinghai is seeing
(93 seconds for memory_dev_init() rather than 3 or 4 seconds) might be
due to my less-efficient method of awakening the RCU kthreads, so that
Peter's approache might help.
If that doesn't speed things up for Yinghai, then I will work out some
tracing to help localize the slowdown that he is seeing.
Of course, if you would rather that I get to the bottom of this before
pulling, fair enough!
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-21 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-21 14:06 [GIT PULL rcu/next] fixes and breakup of memory-barrier-decrease patch Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-21 14:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-21 19:08 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2011-05-21 19:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-21 20:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-22 9:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-22 16:17 ` 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=20110521190830.GH2271@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
/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.