Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:55:52 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 2/9] rcu: Provide cond_resched_rcu_qs()
 to force quiescent states in long loops
Message-ID: <20140729175552.GX11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20140728225556.GA19493@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1406588180-21933-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1406588180-21933-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20140729075536.GZ19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20140729162236.GP11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20140729172542.GK3935@laptop>
 <20140729173318.GW11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20140729173600.GN3935@laptop>
 <20140729173733.GZ12054@laptop.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140729173733.GZ12054@laptop.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > No, but why can't we make the regular cond_resched() do this?
> > > 
> > > Well, I got a lot of grief when I tried it a few weeks ago.
> > > 
> > > But from what I can see, you are the maintainer or cond_resched(), so
> > > if you are good with making the normal cond_resched() do this, I am
> > > more than happy to make it so!  ;-)
> > 
> > Well, its the 'obvious' thing to do. But clearly I haven't tried so I'm
> > blissfully unaware of any problems. And the Changelog didn't inform me
> > either (you had a link in there, which I didn't read :-)
> 
> Then again, last time we touched cond_resched() we had a scalability
> issue or somesuch, or am I misremembering things?

More overhead than scalability, but yes.  That said, that was a much
heavier weight touch.  A later version with only an access to per-CPU
variable turned out to have overhead below what could be measured.
But I am comfortable with the current approach that does not touch
cond_resched() as well.

							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/