Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932676AbcKCQdk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:33:40 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:36016 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757848AbcKCQdj (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:33:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:33:27 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Julia Cartwright , Luiz Capitulino , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: update: make RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT default Message-ID: <20161103163326.jkjbncoz7a5oriy5@linutronix.de> References: <20161012171553.GA18392@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> <20161012203223.GK29518@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161013191332-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20161014092050.GW29518@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161016044420-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20161016112846.GR29518@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161031173852.a3ji7hhgjis5l3u4@linutronix.de> <20161031181543.GN3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161102163002.igni3zdnid535nou@linutronix.de> <20161103162228.GG3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <20161103162228.GG3716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1127 Lines: 32 On 2016-11-03 09:22:28 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:30:02PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT should speed up the boot process by enforcing > > synchronize_rcu_expedited() instead of synchronize_rcu() during the boot > > process. There should be no reason why one does not want this and there > > is no need worry about real time latency at this point. > > Therefore make it default. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > > Well, it has been awhile since I removed a Kconfig parameter. > > So why could this be a bad thing? > > 1. Very large systems might see scalability issues with unconditional > expediting at boot. But if we don't try it, we won't know. You mean we would make the boot process slower for them instead of faster? > 2. People bringing up new hardware might not want quite so many > IPIs. But they can just set rcu_normal to prevent that. I wanted to make things simple and not complicated… > I am therefore queuing it for testiong and review. ;-) Okay thanks. > Thanx, Paul Sebastian