Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:15:58 -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: <20150701001558.GU3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20150630214805.GA7795@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150630220014.GA10916@cloud>
 <20150630221224.GQ3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150630234633.GA11450@cloud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150630234633.GA11450@cloud>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2801
Lines: 53

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:46:33PM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:12:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 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!  ;-)
> 
> Consider it a fairly weak concern against.  Increasing performance seems
> like a good thing in general; I just don't relish the future "feels less
> responsive" bug reports that take a long time to track down and turn out
> to be "this completely unrelated driver was loaded and started using
> expedited grace periods".

>From what I can see, this one needs a good reason to go in, as opposed
to a good reason to stay out.

> Then again, perhaps the more relevant concern would be why drivers use
> expedited grace periods in the first place.

Networking uses expedited grace periods when RTNL is held to reduce
contention on that lock.  Several other places have used it to minimize
user-visible grace-period slowdown.  But there are probably places that
would be better served doing something different.  That is after all
the common case for most synchronization primitives.  ;-)

							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/