Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753943AbbBTJL3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:11:29 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:36271 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753610AbbBTJL1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:11:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:11:07 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Paul E. McKenney" 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 tip/core/rcu 0/4] Programmatic nestable expedited grace periods Message-ID: <20150220091107.GN21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20150220050850.GA32639@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150220050850.GA32639@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1460 Lines: 30 On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 09:08:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hello! > > This series, possibly for v3.21, contains changes that allow in-kernel > code to specify that all subsequent synchronous grace-period primitives > (synchronize_rcu() and friends) be expedited. New rcu_expedite_gp() > and rcu_unexpedite_gp() primitives enable and disable expediting, > and these may be nested. Note that the rcu_expedited boot/sysfs > variable, if non-zero, causes expediting to happen regardless of calls > to rcu_expedite_gp(). > > Because one of the use cases for these primitives is to expedite > grace periods during the in-kernel portion of boot, a new Kconfig > parameter named CONFIG_RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT causes the kernel to act > as if rcu_expedite_gp() was called very early in boot. At the end > of boot (presumably just before init is spawned), a call to > rcu_end_inkernel_boot() will provide the matching rcu_unexpedite_gp() > if required. So I though we wanted to get rid / limit the expedited stuff because its IPI happy, and here its spreading. Does it really make a machine boot much faster? Why are people using synchronous gp primitives if they care about speed? Should we not fix that instead? -- 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/