Re: [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:19:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 12:02:16 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > i'm wondering what Andrew thinks - he had objections, right?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > More like "concerns".  It's unobvious to me that the modest .text
> > > savings justify the costs of an additional RCU implementation.  Where
> > > those costs include
> > > 
> > > - additional maintenance work and
> > > 
> > > - the reduced code reliability which comes from fragmenting the
> > >   tester base.  This will mostly affect users of the less popular RCU
> > >   implementations.
> > > 
> > > But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  And maybe I'm right, but we'll merge it anyway ;)
> > 
> > ;-)
> > 
> > How about if acceptance of Tiny RCU happens at the same time as Classic
> > RCU is dropped?  That would be a large net decrease in code size and
> > complexity.
> 
> It's a bit artificial to link the two actions.  Removing something:
> good.  Adding something: bad.  good+bad == less good ;)

Ah, but from a memory-footprint perspective, removing Classic RCU is
about 1.5K bad, given the larger memory footprint of Hierarchical RCU.
So, in this case, removing Classic RCU: good complexity, bad memory
footprint.  Adding Tiny RCU: slightly bad complexity, good memory
footprint.

So, replacing Classic RCU with Tiny RCU improves (reduces) both the
complexity and the memory footprint.

							Thanx, Paul