From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751836AbcGNGuI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:50:08 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:45712 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751728AbcGNGuD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:50:03 -0400
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:49:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes
Message-ID: <20160714064956.GC30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160713183347.GK4065@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CALAqxLU76kVm8b5GNnSk25-Xk6D1efiWtwNJbY1th_pcN9Ks=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713201823.GB29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713202657.GW30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160713203944.GC29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713205102.GZ30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160713210315.GO7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160713210526.GF29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713211841.GQ7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160713220128.GA15005@htj.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160713220128.GA15005@htj.duckdns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 06:01:28PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Technically, I think the lglock approach would be better here given
> the combination of requirements; however, it's quite a bit more code
> which would likely require some sophistications down the line (like
> blocking new readers first at the start of down_write). 

So the immediate problem with lg style locks is that the 'local' lock
will not stay local since these are preemptible locks we can get
migrations etc..

All fixable, but still.

> If we have to
> go there, we'll go there but for now I think it'd be simpler to
> conditionally switch to the expedited operations.  It can be a config
> option which is selected by !RT as you suggested.  If anyone hits an
> actual issue with that, we can go for the lglock thing.

So the main objection I have is that this isn't a fundamental fix, this
only cures things because Android only runs on small machines.

If someone with a big computer tries to do the same things we're up some
creek without no paddle. There's just no way we can make a global writer
'fast'.