From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: update: make RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT default Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:59:31 -0700 Message-ID: <20161103165931.GJ3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20161012203223.GK29518@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161013191332-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20161014092050.GW29518@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161016044420-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20161016112846.GR29518@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161031173852.a3ji7hhgjis5l3u4@linutronix.de> <20161031181543.GN3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161102163002.igni3zdnid535nou@linutronix.de> <20161103162228.GG3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161103163326.jkjbncoz7a5oriy5@linutronix.de> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Julia Cartwright , Luiz Capitulino , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161103163326.jkjbncoz7a5oriy5@linutronix.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:33:27PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-11-03 09:22:28 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:30:02PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT should speed up the boot process by enforcing > > > synchronize_rcu_expedited() instead of synchronize_rcu() during the boot > > > process. There should be no reason why one does not want this and there > > > is no need worry about real time latency at this point. > > > Therefore make it default. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > > > > Well, it has been awhile since I removed a Kconfig parameter. > > > > So why could this be a bad thing? > > > > 1. Very large systems might see scalability issues with unconditional > > expediting at boot. But if we don't try it, we won't know. > > You mean we would make the boot process slower for them instead of > faster? For really bit systems, quite possibly, where "really big" means many hundreds or (more likely) thousands of CPUs. But there are things that I can do to fix this when and if. > > 2. People bringing up new hardware might not want quite so many > > IPIs. But they can just set rcu_normal to prevent that. > > I wanted to make things simple and not complicated… I know that feeling. ;-) > > I am therefore queuing it for testiong and review. ;-) > > Okay thanks. Thanx, Paul > Sebastian >