From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Making rcu_normal=1 in RT
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 05:31:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161101051400-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161101025240.GR3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:52:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 04:36:54AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:19:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:37:04AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:15:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 06:38:52PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > > > On 2016-10-16 04:28:46 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > If the relevant maintainers are OK with that, I am OK with it as long
> > > > > > > as it is non-default (at least to begin with) and does not introduce
> > > > > > > additional Kconfig questions. My guess is that a boot parameter would
> > > > > > > work best, but something to discuss.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay. For me to summary:
> > > > > > - we want rcu_normal_after_boot=1 on -RT via CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be good.
> > > > >
> > > > > > - this makes synchronize_rcu_expedited() behave like
> > > > > > synchronize_rcu() and therefore I can drop all patches replacing
> > > > > > synchronize_rcu_expedited() with synchronize_rcu().
> > > > >
> > > > > And this would be a benefit. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > > - optionally it has been requested to make synchronize_rcu() behave like
> > > > > > synchronize_rcu_expedited() on shutdown and kexec().
> > > > >
> > > > > You can invoke rcu_unexpedite_gp() to force all subsequennt grace periods
> > > > > to be expedited, but you do need to clear rcu_normal for this to have
> > > > > effect. Right now, that means "WRITE_ONCE(rcu_normal, 0)", but I could
> > > > > easily supply a formal API if you would prefer. Which you probably
> > > > > would given that TINY_RCU doesn't have rcu_normal...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did I miss understood / forgot something?
> > > > >
> > > > > It would not hurt to boot with rcu_expedited if boot speed is critical,
> > > > > but I don't know whether or not this should be enabled by default.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > I don't know either but I'd like to know ATM it's expedited
> > > > by default.
> > >
> > > In current mainline, no. That is, rcu_expedited=0 by default.
> > >
> > > Or am I missing the point of your question?
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > That's true - what I meant is that adding and removing network devices
> > happens on boot and calls synchronize_rcu_expedited,
> > with the commit log explaining that this is done for speeding up boot
> > and shutdown.
>
> The rcu_normal boot parameter will indeed nullify this optimization.
> The boot parameters are normally dumped into dmesg, which should allow
> determining when this has happened. But I do still feel like I am not
> fully understanding your concern.
>
> Thanx, Paul
I thought you asked whether people that care about boot time
should just boot with rcu_expedited=1.
I was trying to say that the fact net core calls expedited sync
implies that many people care about boot time.
Should rcu_normal_after_boot override rcu_expedited?
I'm not sure what happens if you specify both ATM.
--
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-01 3:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-12 15:12 Making rcu_normal=1 in RT Luiz Capitulino
2016-10-12 16:21 ` Julia Cartwright
2016-10-12 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-12 16:49 ` Luiz Capitulino
2016-10-12 17:15 ` Julia Cartwright
2016-10-12 20:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-13 16:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-10-14 9:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-16 1:45 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-10-16 11:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-31 17:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-10-31 18:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-31 22:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-01 2:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-01 2:36 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-01 2:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-01 3:31 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2016-11-02 16:05 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-03 16:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-02 16:30 ` [PATCH] rcu: update: make RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT default Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-03 16:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-03 16:33 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-03 16:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-07 17:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-11-07 17:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-07 17:35 ` Josh Triplett
2016-11-07 18:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-07 18:08 ` Josh Triplett
2016-11-07 19:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-02 16:51 ` Making rcu_normal=1 in RT Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-02 17:41 ` Luiz Capitulino
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=20161101051400-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=julia@ni.com \
--cc=lcapitulino@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).