From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
"Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] rcu: Add a minimum time for marking boot as completed
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 17:19:08 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230302011908.GN2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YRwNT02Z7e1NVd5eCknwtGfS98cViMGjuvp7zFNgu8pxg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:08:54PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 7:49 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 04:31:01PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 12:11 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Hmmm I see what you mean, so a conservative and configurable "fail-safe"
> > > > > timeout followed by sysctl to end the boot earlier than the timeout, should
> > > > > do it (something like 30 seconds IMHO sounds reasonable)? In any case,
> > > > > whatever way we go, we would not end the kernel boot before
> > > > > rcu_end_inkernel_boot() is called at least once (which is the current
> > > > > behavior).
> > > > >
> > > > > So it would be:
> > > > >
> > > > > low level boot + initcalls
> > > > > 20 sec 30 second timeout
> > > > > |------------------------------|--------------------------
> > > > > | |
> > > > > old rcu_end_inkernel_boot() new rcu_end_inkernel_boot()
> > > > >
> > > > > But it could be, if user decides:
> > > > > low level boot + initcalls
> > > > > 20 sec 10 second timeout
> > > > > |------------------------------|--------------------------
> > > > > | |
> > > > > old rcu_end_inkernel_boot() new rcu_end_inkernel_boot()
> > > > > via /sys/ entry.
> > > >
> > > > The problem I have with a random default timeout is that it may break sensitive
> > > > workloads. If the default is 30 and say the boot only takes 5 seconds and
> > > > immediately launches a latency sensitive task, this may break things in a
> > > > subtle way during these 25 seconds when it usually didn't. Because expedited
> > > > RCU is a hammer interrupting all non-idle CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > Until now forcing expedited RCU was only performed before any user code. Now it
> > > > crosses the boundary so better be careful. I'd personally advocate for keeping
> > > > the current call before init is launched. Then provide an end_boot_sysctl kernel
> > > > boot parameter that will ignore the current call before init and let the user
> > > > signal that through sysctl.
> > >
> > > Considering that the PREEMPT-RT system benefits from it within the 8
> > > seconds, I will go ahead make the default 15 seconds or so and make it
> > > tunable. Hopefully that will be an acceptable compromise, with
> > > sufficient documentation, changelog, and so forth... If you agree I'd
> > > appreciate your Ack on the next posting.
> >
> > Just checking on the sysfs portion of this.
>
> Yes, the current plan is to add a sysfs node (likely sysctl) with the
> 15-second failsafe.
Whew!!! Very good, then!
> > After all, tuning kernel
> > boot parameters to specific systems is not all that much fun, especially
> > when you have lots of systems.
>
> Are you suggesting to drop "end the boot" sysfs and just have a
> minimum-time approach as I initially did?
Not at all. I was just concerned that the sysfs was getting lost in
the shuffle.
All good now, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-02 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-25 3:34 [PATCH RFC v2] rcu: Add a minimum time for marking boot as completed Joel Fernandes (Google)
2023-02-25 3:36 ` Randy Dunlap
2023-02-26 19:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-02-26 23:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-27 7:53 ` Zhuo, Qiuxu
2023-02-27 13:22 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-27 14:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-02-27 15:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-27 18:06 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-02-27 18:15 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-27 18:20 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-02-27 18:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-27 18:57 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-02-27 19:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-27 23:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-02-27 23:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-27 23:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-02-28 1:30 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-02-28 11:04 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-02-28 20:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-03-01 17:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-01 21:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-03-02 0:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-02 1:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-03-02 1:19 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2023-02-28 11:42 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-02-28 6:40 ` Zhuo, Qiuxu
2023-02-28 14:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-03-01 1:34 ` Zhuo, Qiuxu
2023-03-01 15:57 ` Joel Fernandes
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=20230302011908.GN2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox