Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:12:24 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: josh@joshtriplett.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, tglx@linutronix.de,
        peterz@infradead.org, 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 0/5] Expedited grace periods encouraging
 normal ones
Message-ID: <20150630221224.GQ3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20150630214805.GA7795@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150630220014.GA10916@cloud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150630220014.GA10916@cloud>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1672
Lines: 33

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:00:15PM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:48:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > This series contains some highly experimental patches that allow normal
> > grace periods to take advantage of the work done by concurrent expedited
> > grace periods.  This can reduce the overhead incurred by normal grace
> > periods by eliminating the need for force-quiescent-state scans that
> > would otherwise have happened after the expedited grace period completed.
> > It is not clear whether this is a useful tradeoff.  Nevertheless, this
> > series contains the following patches:
> 
> While it makes sense to avoid unnecessarily delaying a normal grace
> period if the expedited machinery has provided the necessary delay, I'm
> also *deeply* concerned that this will create a new class of
> nondeterministic performance issues.  Something that uses RCU may
> perform badly due to grace period latency, but then suddenly start
> performing well because an unrelated task starts hammering expedited
> grace periods.  This seems particularly likely during boot, for
> instance, where RCU grace periods can be a significant component of boot
> time (when you're trying to boot to userspace in small fractions of a
> second).

I will take that as another vote against.  And for a reason that I had
not yet come up with, so good show!  ;-)

							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/