Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:19:52 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org
Subject: Re: Does anyone use CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU?
Message-ID: <20121113211952.GC2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20121113004906.GA10557@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20121113144620.GA27426@elliptictech.com>
 <20121113170804.GA2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20121113175654.GA30119@elliptictech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121113175654.GA30119@elliptictech.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2075
Lines: 50

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:56:54PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2012-11-13 09:08 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:46:20AM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > On 2012-11-12 16:49 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > > 
> > > > I know of people using TINY_RCU, TREE_RCU, and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, but I
> > > > have not heard of anyone using TINY_PREEMPT_RCU for whom TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > was not a viable option (in contrast, the people running Linux on
> > > > tiny-memmory systems typically use TINY_RCU).  Of course, if no one
> > > > really needs it, the proper thing to do is to remove it.
> > > > 
> > > > So, if you need TINY_PREEMPT_RCU, please let me know.  Otherwise, I will
> > > > remove it, probably in the 3.9 timeframe.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I use TINY_PREEMPT_RCU on my UP machines.  It is, in fact, the only
> > > option.
> > 
> > Suppose that TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was available for !SMP && PREEMPT builds.
> > Would that work for you?
> 
> To be honest I don't really know what the difference is, other than what
> the help text says, which is:
> 
>   [TINY_PREEMPT_RCU] greatly reduces the memory footprint of RCU.
>   
> "Greatly reduced memory footprint" sounds pretty useful...

OK, so from your viewpoint, the only possible benefit is smaller
memory?  How much memory does your device have, if I may ask?

> As a side note, I wonder why any of these RCU implementations are
> user-seclectable options in the first place?  It looks like you will
> only ever have one choice, since the dependencies all seem mutually
> exclusive:
> 
>   TREE_RCU         depends on !PREEMPT &&  SMP
>   TREE_PREEMPT_RCU depends on  PREEMPT &&  SMP
>   TINY_RCU         depends on !PREEMPT && !SMP
>   TINY_PREEMPT_RCU depends on  PREEMPT && !SMP

Inertia on my part.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/