From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
kernel-team@android.com,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] doc: Clarify RCU data-structure comment about rcu_tree fanout
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:56:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181111195645.9205-2-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181111195619.GA6958@linux.ibm.com>
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
RCU Data-Structures document describes a trick to test RCU with small
number of CPUs but with a taller tree. It wasn't immediately clear how
the document arrived at 16 CPUs which also requires setting the
FANOUT_LEAF to 2 instead of the default of 16. This commit therefore
provides the needed clarification.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: <kernel-team@android.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
---
.../RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
index 1d2051c0c3fc..476b1ac38e4c 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
@@ -127,9 +127,11 @@ CPUs, RCU would configure the <tt>rcu_node</tt> tree as follows:
</p><p>RCU currently permits up to a four-level tree, which on a 64-bit system
accommodates up to 4,194,304 CPUs, though only a mere 524,288 CPUs for
32-bit systems.
-On the other hand, you can set <tt>CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT</tt> to be
-as small as 2 if you wish, which would permit only 16 CPUs, which
-is useful for testing.
+On the other hand, you can set both <tt>CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT</tt> and
+<tt>CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF</tt> to be as small as 2, which would result
+in a 16-CPU test using a 4-level tree.
+This can be useful for testing large-system capabilities on small test
+machines.
</p><p>This multi-level combining tree allows us to get most of the
performance and scalability
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-11 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-11 19:56 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/20] Documentation updates for v4.21/v5.0 Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/20] doc: Set down forward-progress requirements Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/20] doc: Remove rcu_preempt_state reference in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/20] doc: rcu: Update information about resched_cpu Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/20] doc: rcu: Remove rcu_dynticks from Data-Structures Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/20] doc: rcu: Update Data-Structures for RCU flavor consolidation Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/20] doc: rcu: Better clarify the rcu_segcblist ->len field Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/20] doc: rcu: Update description of gp_seq fields in rcu_data Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/20] doc: Document rcutorture forward-progress test kernel parameters Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/20] doc: rcu: Update core and full API in whatisRCU Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] doc: rcu: Add more rationale for using rcu_read_lock_sched in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete suggestion from checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete checklist item about synchronize_rcu usage Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/20] doc: rcu: Encourage use of rcu_barrier in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/20] doc: Make reader aware of rcu_dereference_protected Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/20] doc: Remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/20] doc: Make listing in RCU perf/scale requirements use rcu_assign_pointer() Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/20] doc: RCU scheduler spinlock rcu_read_unlock() restriction remains Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/20] doc: Correct parameter in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/20] doc: Fix "struction" typo in RCU memory-ordering documentation 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=20181111195645.9205-2-paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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