From: Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org
Subject: Re: Does anyone use CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU?
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:40:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121113224040.GA14594@elliptictech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121113222521.GI2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 2012-11-13 14:25 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:47:20PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > On 2012-11-13 13:19 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:56:54PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > > On 2012-11-13 09:08 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > Suppose that TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was available for !SMP && PREEMPT builds.
> > > > > Would that work for you?
> > > >
> > > > To be honest I don't really know what the difference is, other than what
> > > > the help text says, which is:
> > > >
> > > > [TINY_PREEMPT_RCU] greatly reduces the memory footprint of RCU.
> > > >
> > > > "Greatly reduced memory footprint" sounds pretty useful...
> > >
> > > OK, so from your viewpoint, the only possible benefit is smaller
> > > memory?
> >
> > Well, I have no idea. If I was given the choice between TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU, absent any information not in the description of
> > these options, I would choose TINY. The description suggests that the
> > memory savings come at the expense of SMP support, which sounds like a
> > great tradeoff to make for a UP system.
> >
> > > How much memory does your device have, if I may ask?
> >
> > It's a (pretty old!) desktop. I recently had to upgrade it to two
> > gigabytes due to unbearable thrashing with only one...
>
> If you have two gigabytes (or even one gigabyte), you won't notice the
> few kilobytes of difference between TINY_PREEMPT_RCU and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU.
Well then TINY_PREEMPT_RCU doesn't sound all that useful for me!
Perhaps the help text could be improved... such as changing the words
"greatly reduced" to "marginally reduced" as a first step?
Is there no significant cache impact due to the larger implementation?
I don't really have the time or expertise to do measurements in this
regard, but if TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was actually a selectable option I could
at least choose it to see if anything explodes horribly...
Cheers,
--
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-13 22:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-13 0:49 Does anyone use CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU? Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 1:12 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-11-13 1:17 ` Josh Triplett
2012-11-13 1:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-11-13 1:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 1:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 14:46 ` Nick Bowler
2012-11-13 17:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 17:56 ` Nick Bowler
2012-11-13 21:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 21:47 ` Nick Bowler
2012-11-13 22:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 22:40 ` Nick Bowler [this message]
2012-11-14 0:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <CAGChsmOBB1yFNP5xSa06v+CYn0A=AjcZTyAzL8npWRdNYYLBZA@mail.gmail.com>
2012-11-13 23:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 20:22 ` Tim Sander
2012-11-13 21:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-13 23:32 ` Tim Sander
2012-11-14 0:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-11-14 0:36 ` Josh Triplett
2012-11-14 1:07 ` 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=20121113224040.GA14594@elliptictech.com \
--to=nbowler@elliptictech.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sbw@mit.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).