From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] fixes and breakup of memory-barrier-decrease patch
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 12:08:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110521190830.GH2271@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110521142844.GA29813@elte.hu>
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 04:28:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ingo,
> >
> > This pull requests covers some RCU bug fixes and one patch rework.
> >
> > The first group breaks up the infamous now-reverted (but ultimately
> > vindicated) "Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof"
> > commit into five commits. These five commits immediately follow the
> > revert, and the diff across all six of these commits is empty, so that
> > the effect of the five commits is to revert the revert.
>
> But ... the regression that was observed with that commit needs to be fixed
> first, or not? In what way was the barrier commit vindicated?
>From what I can see, the hang was fixed by Frederic's patch at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/19/753. I was interpreting that as
vindication, perhaps ill-advisedly.
Yinghai said that he was still seeing a delay, adn that he was seeing
it even with the "Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal
proof" reverted: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/20/427. This hang seems
to happen when he uses gcc 4.5.0, but not when using gcc 4.5.1, assuming
I understood his sequence of emails. So I was interpreting that as
meaning that the delay was unlikely to be caused by that commit, probably
by one of the later commits.
I clearly need to figure out what is causing this delay. I asked Yinghai
to apply c7a378603 (Remove waitqueue usage for cpu, node, and boost kthreads)
from Peter Zijlstra because the long delays that Yinghai is seeing
(93 seconds for memory_dev_init() rather than 3 or 4 seconds) might be
due to my less-efficient method of awakening the RCU kthreads, so that
Peter's approache might help.
If that doesn't speed things up for Yinghai, then I will work out some
tracing to help localize the slowdown that he is seeing.
Of course, if you would rather that I get to the bottom of this before
pulling, fair enough!
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-21 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-21 14:06 [GIT PULL rcu/next] fixes and breakup of memory-barrier-decrease patch Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-21 14:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-21 19:08 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2011-05-21 19:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-21 20:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-22 9:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-22 16:17 ` 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=20110521190830.GH2271@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.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