lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC] rcu: Check the range of jiffies_till_xxx_fqs on setting them
From
Date


On 2018-05-30 22:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:06:52PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018-05-29 21:01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:23:36PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>>>> Hello Paul and folks,
>>>>
>>>> I've thought the code should've been like the below since the range
>>>> checking of jiffies_till_first_fqs and jiffies_till_next_fqs everytime
>>>> in the loop of rcu_gp_kthread are unnecessary at all. However, it's ok
>>>> even if you don't think it's worth doing it.
>>>
>>> Nice!
>>>
>>>> Secondly, I also think jiffies_till_first_fqs = 0 is meaningless so
>>>> added checking and adjusting it as what's done on jiffies_till_next_fqs.
>>>> Thought?
>>>
>>> Actually, jiffies_till_first_fqs == 0 is very useful for cases where
>>> at least one CPU is expected to be idle and grace-period latency is
>>> important. In this case, doing the first scan immediately gets the
>>> dyntick-idle state recorded immediately, getting the idle CPUs out of
>>> the way of the grace period immediately.
>>
>> Hi Paul~
>>
>> You might want to handle it through sysfs. Otherwise, we can do it with
>> force_quiescent_state() IMHO.
>
> I agree that sysfs would be better than debugfs because these parameters
> are about tuning, not debugging, so good point!
>
>>> So why not do this scan as part of grace-period initialization? Because
>>> doing so consumes extra CPU and results in extra cache misses, which is
>>> the opposite of what you want on a completely busy system, especially
>>> one where the CPUs are context switching quickly. Thus no scan during
>>> grace-period initialization.
>>
>> I am sorry I don't understand this paragraph. :(
>
> Let me try again. ;-)
>
> I could change RCU to avoid the need for jiffies_till_first_fqs == 0,
> but doing that would increase CPU consumption for workloads that are
> already bottlenecked on the CPU. So I won't be making that change,
> so we still need jiffies_till_first_fqs == 0.

Thanks. I see. We need it then.

--
Thanks,
Byungchul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-31 03:29    [W:0.037 / U:1.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site