Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753022AbbGBN6u (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:58:50 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:58498 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751025AbbGBN6l (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:58:41 -0400 X-Helo: d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com X-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 06:58:35 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, 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 RFC tip/core/rcu 0/5] Expedited grace periods encouraging normal ones Message-ID: <20150702135834.GF3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20150630221224.GQ3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150630234633.GA11450@cloud> <20150701100939.GR19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150701105511.GN18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150701140031.GB3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150701141710.GG25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150701161705.GK3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150701170242.GL3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150701200936.GP3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150702074719.GA27230@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150702074719.GA27230@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15070213-0005-0000-0000-0000134C032B Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3327 Lines: 71 On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:47:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 07:02:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 09:17:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:17:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > 74b51ee152b6 ("ACPI / osl: speedup grace period in acpi_os_map_cleanup") > > > > > > > > Really??? > > > > > > > > I am not concerned about this one. After all, one of the first things that > > > > people do for OS-jitter-sensitive workloads is to get rid of binary blobs. > > > > And any runtime use of ACPI as well. And let's face it, if your > > > > latency-sensitive workload is using either binary blobs or ACPI, you have > > > > already completely lost. Therefore, an additional expedited grace period > > > > cannot possibly cause you to lose any more. > > > > > > This isn't solely about rt etc.. this call is a generic facility used by > > > however many consumers. A normal workstation/server could run into it at > > > relatively high frequency depending on its workload. > > > > > > Even on not latency sensitive workloads I think hammering all active CPUs is > > > bad behaviour. Remember that a typical server class machine easily has more > > > than 32 CPUs these days. > > > > Well, that certainly is one reason for the funnel locking, sequence counters, > > etc., keeping the overhead bounded despite large numbers of CPUs. So I don't > > believe that a non-RT/non-HPC workload is going to notice. > > So I think Peter's concern is that we should not be offering/promoting APIs that > are easy to add, hard to remove/convert - especially if we _know_ they eventually > have to be converted. That model does not scale, it piles up increasing amounts of > crud. > > Also, there will be a threshold over which it will be increasingly harder to make > hard-rt promises, because so much seemingly mundane functionality will be using > these APIs. The big plus of -rt is that it's out of the box hard RT - if people > are able to control their environment carefully they can use RTAI or so. I.e. it > directly cuts into the usability of Linux in certain segments. > > Death by a thousand cuts and such. > > And it's not like it's that hard to stem the flow of algorithmic sloppiness at the > source, right? OK, first let me make sure that I understand what you are asking for: 1. Completely eliminate synchronize_rcu_expedited() and synchronize_sched_expedited(), replacing all uses with their unexpedited counterparts. (Note that synchronize_srcu_expedited() does not wake up CPUs, courtesy of its read-side memory barriers.) The fast-boot guys are probably going to complain, along with the networking guys. 2. Keep synchronize_rcu_expedited() and synchronize_sched_expedited(), but push back hard on any new uses and question any existing uses. 3. Revert 74b51ee152b6 ("ACPI / osl: speedup grace period in acpi_os_map_cleanup"). 4. Something else? 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/