From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com [216.82.255.55]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91496B0012 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5H0Hlfw024043 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:17:47 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p5H0jeYG169770 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:45:40 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5H0jcxO017146 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:45:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:45:37 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Re: REGRESSION: Performance regressions from switching anon_vma->lock to mutex Message-ID: <20110617004536.GP2582@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20110615201216.GA4762@elte.hu> <35c0ff16-bd58-4b9c-9d9f-d1a4df2ae7b9@email.android.com> <20110616070335.GA7661@elte.hu> <20110616171644.GK2582@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110616202550.GA16214@elte.hu> <1308262883.2516.71.camel@pasglop> <20110616223837.GA18431@elte.hu> <4DFA8802.6010300@linux.intel.com> <20110616225803.GA28557@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110616225803.GA28557@elte.hu> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andi Kleen , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Tim Chen , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , KOSAKI Motohiro , David Miller , Martin Schwidefsky , Russell King , Paul Mundt , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , Tony Luck , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin , Namhyung Kim , shaohua.li@intel.com, alex.shi@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:58:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > There's a crazy solution for that: the idle thread could process > > > RCU callbacks carefully, as if it was running user-space code. > > > > In Ben's kernel NFS server case the system may not be idle. > > An always-100%-busy NFS server is very unlikely, but even in the > hypothetical case a kernel NFS server is really performing system > calls from a kernel thread in essence. If it doesn't do it explicitly > then its main loop can easily include a "check RCU callbacks" call. As long as they make sure to call it in a clean environment: no locks held and so on. But I am a bit worried about the possibility of someone forgetting to put one of these where it is needed -- it would work just fine for most workloads, but could fail only for rare workloads. That said, invoking RCU core/callback processing from the scheduler context certainly sounds like an interesting way to speed up grace periods. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org