Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757273AbaFSC3v (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:29:51 -0400 Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:34654 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756897AbaFSC3t (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:29:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:29:30 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Andi Kleen Cc: Dave Hansen , LKML , Josh Triplett , "Chen, Tim C" , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability Message-ID: <20140619022930.GA11365@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20140613224519.GV4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <53A0CAE5.9000702@intel.com> <20140618001836.GV4669@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <53A132D4.60408@intel.com> <20140618125831.GB4669@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <53A1CE19.7040103@intel.com> <20140618203052.GT4669@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140618235131.GA25946@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140619014200.GO8178@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20140619021337.GA4669@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140619021337.GA4669@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14061902-9332-0000-0000-000001232813 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:13:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:42:00PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so > > many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround > > unconditionally. > > OOM prevention should count for something, I would hope. > > > cond_resched() is in EVERY sleeping lock and in EVERY memory allocation! > > And these are really critical paths for many workloads. > > > > If you really wanted to do this I think you would first need > > to define a cond_resched_i_am_not_fast() or somesuch. > > > > Or put it all behind some debugging ifdef. > > My first thought was to put it behind CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL, but everyone > seems to be enabling that one. > > As mentioned earlier, I could potentially push the check behind > the need-resched check, which would get it off of the common case > of the code paths you call out above. Of course, it would also be good to measure this and see how much it really hurts. 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/