linux-input.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  reply	other threads:[~2009-03-20 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ 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  6:35               ` 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 21:07                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-22  3:40                         ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-03-22  4:38                           ` Paul E. McKenney
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 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 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).