Re: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless questions

[Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1739 bytes --]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:05:42 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > 	Real-time priority to use for RCU worker threads (RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO) [0] (NEW) 
> > > 
> > > Indeed, Linus complained about this one.  ;-)
> > 
> > :-) Yes, it's an essentially unanswerable question.
> > 
> > > This Kconfig parameter is a stopgap, and needs a real solution.  
> > > People with crazy-heavy workloads involving realtime cannot live 
> > > without it, but that means that most people don't have to care.  I 
> > > have had solving this on my list, and this clearly increases its 
> > > priority.
> > 
> > So what value do they use, prio 99? 98? It might be better to offer 
> > this option as a binary choice, and set a given priority. If -rt 
> > people complain then they might help us in solving it properly.
> 
> I honestly do not remember what priority they were using, it is
> not in email, and I don't keep IRC logs that far back.  Adding
> linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org on CC.

As I recall, we started out using fifo:1, but when you get heavy
workloads running at higher fifo priorities, we wanted to boost the rcu
worker threads over those workloads. 

Currently the irq threads default to fifo:50, so maybe a good
default choice for the rcu threads on RT is fifo:49. That of course
presumes rational behavior on the part of application developers. 

I seem to recall that you and I had a discussion about making this
value a runtime knob in /sys but that didn't go anywhere. Do we need to
crank that up again and just use the config as a default/starting
value? If so then we could just default to fifo:1 and let sysadmins
tweak the value to match up with the workload. 

Clark

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]