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
next prev parent 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).