Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:09:03 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless
 questions
Message-ID: <20150420170902.GU5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20150416183812.GA5571@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150418130340.GA26931@gmail.com>
 <20150418133444.GD23685@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150418143238.GA2337@gmail.com>
 <20150419020541.GA5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150420113554.598e503f@sluggy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150420113554.598e503f@sluggy>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2516
Lines: 55

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:05:42 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > 	Real-time priority to use for RCU worker threads (RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO) [0] (NEW) 
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed, Linus complained about this one.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > :-) Yes, it's an essentially unanswerable question.
> > > 
> > > > This Kconfig parameter is a stopgap, and needs a real solution.  
> > > > People with crazy-heavy workloads involving realtime cannot live 
> > > > without it, but that means that most people don't have to care.  I 
> > > > have had solving this on my list, and this clearly increases its 
> > > > priority.
> > > 
> > > So what value do they use, prio 99? 98? It might be better to offer 
> > > this option as a binary choice, and set a given priority. If -rt 
> > > people complain then they might help us in solving it properly.
> > 
> > I honestly do not remember what priority they were using, it is
> > not in email, and I don't keep IRC logs that far back.  Adding
> > linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org on CC.
> 
> As I recall, we started out using fifo:1, but when you get heavy
> workloads running at higher fifo priorities, we wanted to boost the rcu
> worker threads over those workloads. 
> 
> Currently the irq threads default to fifo:50, so maybe a good
> default choice for the rcu threads on RT is fifo:49. That of course
> presumes rational behavior on the part of application developers. 
> 
> I seem to recall that you and I had a discussion about making this
> value a runtime knob in /sys but that didn't go anywhere. Do we need to
> crank that up again and just use the config as a default/starting
> value? If so then we could just default to fifo:1 and let sysadmins
> tweak the value to match up with the workload. 

The sysfs knob might be nice, but as far as I know nobody has been
complaining about it.

Besides, we already have the rcutree.kthread_prio= kernel-boot parameter.
So how about if the Kconfig parameter selects either SCHED_OTHER
(the default) or SCHED_FIFO:1, and then the boot parameter can be used
to select other values.

That said, if the lack of a sysfs knob has been causing real problems,
let's make that happen.

							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/