From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] synchronize_rcu(): high latency on idle system
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:33:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200801121833.09508.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1200129791.7999.5.camel@lappy>
On Saturday 12 January 2008 10:23:11 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the
> > approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu(). The
> > motivation is that an otherwise idle system takes about 3 ticks per network
> > interface in unregister_netdev() due to multiple calls to synchronize_rcu(),
> > which adds up to quite a few seconds for tearing down thousands of
> > interfaces. By flushing pending rcu callbacks in the idle loop, the system
> > makes progress hundreds of times faster. If this is indeed a sane thing to,
> > it probably needs to be done for other architectures than x86. And yes, the
> > network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing that
> > is a little more involved.
>
> So, instead of only relying on the tick to drive the RCU state machine,
> you add the idle loop to it. This seems to make sense, esp because nohz
> is held off until rcu is idle too.
For NOHZ I agree it would be probably better to just force a quiescent
cycle than to schedule a one jiffie tick like it is currently done.
For non NOHZ I'm not so sure.
-Andi
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-12 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-12 1:26 [PATCH/RFC] synchronize_rcu(): high latency on idle system Benjamin LaHaise
2008-01-12 2:37 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-12 17:51 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2008-01-12 18:35 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-12 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-12 16:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-01-12 17:33 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
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=200801121833.09508.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).