Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:15:04 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>, 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: <20150420211504.GW5561@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>
 <20150420170902.GU5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150420204049.GF24936@home.goodmis.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150420204049.GF24936@home.goodmis.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1404
Lines: 34

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:40:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:09:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Hmm, what priority is this for anyway. To change the priority of the boost
> value at run time, do we only need to change the priority of the rcub threads?
> 
> And the priority of the other rcu threads can change as well with a simple
> chrt?
> 
> If that's the case, then we don't need a sysctl knob at all.

For the grace-period kthreads and the boost kthread, that is the case.
It is also the case for the per-CPU kthreads that invoke RCU callbacks
for the non-offloaded RCU_BOOST configuration (and that replace all
softirq RCU work in -rt).

So, should I just ditch all of the priority-setting within RCU and tell
users to just use chrt?

							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/