From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
paul.mckenney@linaro.org, mmarek@suse.cz,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rcu: Provide compile-time control for no-CBs CPUs
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:24:40 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130430202440.GA18598@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130430192541.GE3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:25:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:46:12PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Additionally, nowhere in any of this text does it say what a "no-CB CPU" is,
> > or why I would care, or even what the downsides are for each option.
>
> In the absence of any Kconfig change, would the following be more helpful?
A little. You've now documented the mechanism behind each choice,
but there's still no real explanation why I would pick one over the other.
The average reader of these texts isn't going to know whether running something
from a kthread is a better/worse idea than running from softirq context.
Who doesn't like saving energy ? Why would I leave it at the NONE default ?
Why is it even an option ? I'm assuming there's a reason we don't pick
(one of the) energy efficient options by default (performance?) who knows,
there's no explanation.
Why would I want to treat CPU0 differently ? What user-visible downsides
are there ? Who knows..
> +choice
> + prompt "Build-forced no-CBs CPUs"
> + default RCU_NOCB_CPU_NONE
> + help
> + This option allows no-CBs CPUs (whose RCU callbacks are invoked
> + from kthreads rather than from softirq context) to be specified
> + at build time. Additional no-CBs CPUs may be specified by
> + the rcu_nocbs= boot parameter.
> +
> +config RCU_NOCB_CPU_NONE
> + bool "No build_forced no-CBs CPUs"
> + depends on RCU_NOCB_CPU
> + help
> + This option does not force any of the CPUs to be no-CBs CPUs.
> + Only CPUs designated by the rcu_nocbs= boot parameter will be
> + no-CBs CPUs, whose RCU callbacks will be invoked by per-CPU
> + rcuo kthreads. All other CPUs will invoke their own RCU
> + callbacks in softirq context.
> +
> +config RCU_NOCB_CPU_ZERO
> + bool "CPU 0 is a build_forced no-CBs CPU"
> + depends on RCU_NOCB_CPU
> + help
> + This option forces CPU 0 to be a no-CBs CPU, so that its
> + RCU callbacks are invoked by a per-CPU rcuo kthread.
> + Additional CPUs may be designated as no-CBs CPUs using the
> + rcu_nocbs= boot parameter will be no-CBs CPUs. All other CPUs
> + will invoke their own RCU callbacks in softirq context.
> +
> + Select this if CPU 0 needs to be a no-CBs CPU for real-time
> + or energy-efficiency reasons.
> +
> +config RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL
> + bool "All CPUs are build_forced no-CBs CPUs"
> + depends on RCU_NOCB_CPU
> + help
> + This option forces all CPUs to be no-CBs CPUs. The rcu_nocbs=
> + boot parameter will be ignored. All CPUs' RCU callbacks will
> + be executed in the context of per-CPU rcuo kthreads created
> + for this purpose.
> +
> + Select this if all CPUs need to be no-CBs CPUs for real-time
> + or energy-efficiency reasons.
I know how much IBMers love their acronyms. I thought you'd invented
some new rcu variant for a moment. Perhaps "kthreads named 'rcuo'"
would be clearer ?
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-30 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20130430152126.0C564660906@gitolite.kernel.org>
[not found] ` <20130430184612.GA14568@redhat.com>
2013-04-30 19:25 ` rcu: Provide compile-time control for no-CBs CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2013-04-30 20:24 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2013-04-30 21:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-04-30 22:06 ` Dave Jones
2013-04-30 22:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-04-30 21:38 ` Yann E. MORIN
2013-04-30 21:49 ` 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=20130430202440.GA18598@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
--cc=paul.mckenney@linaro.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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