From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Reduce the default HZ value
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:50:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090508125023.GA6935@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1241778776.6311.2585.camel@laptop>
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 12:32:56PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 11:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > In general, I agree. However, in the case where you have a single
> > CPU-bound task running in user mode, you don't care that much about
> > syscall performance. So, yes, this would mean having yet another config
> > variable that users running big CPU-bound scientific applications would
> > need to worry about, which is not perfect either.
> >
> > For whatever it is worth, the added overhead on entry would be something
> > like the following:
> >
> > void rcu_irq_enter(void)
> > {
> > struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &__get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks);
> >
> > if (rdtp->dynticks_nesting++)
> > return;
> > rdtp->dynticks++;
> > WARN_ON_RATELIMIT(!(rdtp->dynticks & 0x1), &rcu_rs);
> > smp_mb(); /* CPUs seeing ++ must see later RCU read-side crit sects */
> > }
> >
> > On exit, a bit more:
> >
> > void rcu_irq_exit(void)
> > {
> > struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &__get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks);
> >
> > if (--rdtp->dynticks_nesting)
> > return;
> > smp_mb(); /* CPUs seeing ++ must see prior RCU read-side crit sects */
> > rdtp->dynticks++;
> > WARN_ON_RATELIMIT(rdtp->dynticks & 0x1, &rcu_rs);
> >
> > /* If the interrupt queued a callback, get out of dyntick mode. */
> > if (__get_cpu_var(rcu_data).nxtlist ||
> > __get_cpu_var(rcu_bh_data).nxtlist)
> > set_need_resched();
> > }
> >
> > But I could move the callback check into call_rcu(), which would get the
> > overhead of rcu_irq_exit() down to about that of rcu_irq_enter().
>
> Can't you simply enter idle state after a grace period completes and
> finds no pending callbacks for the next period. And leave idle state at
> the next call_rcu()?
If there were no RCU callbacks -globally- across all CPUs, yes. But
the check at the end of rcu_irq_exit() is testing only on the current
CPU. Checking across all CPUs is expensive and racy.
So what happens instead is that there is rcu_needs_cpu(), which gates
entry into dynticks-idle mode. This function returns 1 if there are
callbacks on the current CPU. So, if no CPU has an RCU callback, then
all CPUs can enter dynticks-idle mode so that the entire system is
quiescent from an RCU viewpoint -- no RCU processing at all.
Or am I missing what you are getting at with your question?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-08 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-04 18:44 [PATCH] x86: Reduce the default HZ value Alok Kataria
2009-05-05 21:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-05 21:44 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-05 22:09 ` Alok Kataria
2009-05-05 22:33 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-05 23:37 ` Alok Kataria
2009-05-07 14:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 15:12 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-05 21:57 ` Alok Kataria
2009-05-07 14:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 15:14 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-07 15:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 15:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-07 15:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 16:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-07 17:09 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-07 17:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-07 19:51 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-07 20:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-07 20:30 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-07 16:37 ` Alok Kataria
2009-05-07 17:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 17:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 17:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 17:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 17:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 17:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-07 17:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 19:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-07 17:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-07 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-07 18:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 19:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-07 19:53 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-07 19:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 20:24 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-07 20:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-08 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-08 12:50 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-05-08 14:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-08 15:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-07 17:18 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 17:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 17:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 17:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 17:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 17:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 17:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 17:50 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 19:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-07 19:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-07 21:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-07 16:35 ` Chris Snook
2009-05-07 16:56 ` Alok Kataria
2009-05-07 20:29 ` Chris Snook
2009-05-07 20:34 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-07 22:16 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2009-05-07 22:19 ` Alok Kataria
2009-05-08 9:31 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-12 19:45 devzero
2009-05-13 23:30 ` Alok Kataria
2009-05-14 20:25 devzero
2009-05-14 20:29 ` Alan Cox
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=20090508125023.GA6935@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akataria@vmware.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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