From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Romanov Arya <romanov.arya@gmail.com>,
Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] kernel/rcu/tree.c: simplify force_quiescent_state()
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:06:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53A09FD3.1050709@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140617173717.GA28198@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 06/17/2014 01:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
> system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
> and a single node at the root level. If the system is not properly
> configured, it will have three funnel levels. The maximum number of
> funnel levels is four, which would handle more than four million CPUs
> (sixteen million if properly configured), so we should be good. ;-)
>
> The larger numbers of levels are intended strictly for testing. I set
> CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=2 and CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=2 on a 16-CPU system just
> to make sure that I am testing something uglier than what will be running
> in production. A large system should have both of these set to 64,
> though this requires also booting with skew_tick=1 as well.
>
> Thanx, Paul
Thank for the clarification as I haven't looked deep into the code to
see how many levels there are. I totally understand the impact cacheline
contention can have on system performance. After all, this is what many
of my patches are trying to address.
-Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-17 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-17 2:55 [RFC PATCH 1/1] kernel/rcu/tree.c: simplify force_quiescent_state() Pranith Kumar
2014-06-17 14:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 16:01 ` Romanov Arya
2014-06-17 16:56 ` Waiman Long
2014-06-17 17:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 20:06 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2014-06-23 10:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-23 15:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-23 17:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-23 18:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-23 19:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 17:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 18:22 ` Pranith Kumar
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=53A09FD3.1050709@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=romanov.arya@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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