Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:40:40 -0500
From: Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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: <20121113224040.GA14594@elliptictech.com>
References: <20121113004906.GA10557@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20121113144620.GA27426@elliptictech.com>
 <20121113170804.GA2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20121113175654.GA30119@elliptictech.com>
 <20121113211952.GC2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20121113214720.GC13472@elliptictech.com>
 <20121113222521.GI2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121113222521.GI2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: Elliptic Technologies Inc.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2289
Lines: 49

On 2012-11-13 14:25 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:47:20PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > On 2012-11-13 13:19 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:56:54PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > > On 2012-11-13 09:08 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > 
> > Well, I have no idea.  If I was given the choice between TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU, absent any information not in the description of
> > these options, I would choose TINY.  The description suggests that the
> > memory savings come at the expense of SMP support, which sounds like a
> > great tradeoff to make for a UP system.
> > 
> > > How much memory does your device have, if I may ask?
> > 
> > It's a (pretty old!) desktop.  I recently had to upgrade it to two
> > gigabytes due to unbearable thrashing with only one...
> 
> If you have two gigabytes (or even one gigabyte), you won't notice the
> few kilobytes of difference between TINY_PREEMPT_RCU and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU.

Well then TINY_PREEMPT_RCU doesn't sound all that useful for me!
Perhaps the help text could be improved... such as changing the words
"greatly reduced" to "marginally reduced" as a first step?

Is there no significant cache impact due to the larger implementation?
I don't really have the time or expertise to do measurements in this
regard, but if TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was actually a selectable option I could
at least choose it to see if anything explodes horribly...

Cheers,
-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)
--
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/