Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755251AbdDMSXZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:23:25 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:54436 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752457AbdDMSXW (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:23:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:23:09 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/13] rcu: Make RCU_FANOUT_LEAF help text more explicit about skew_tick Message-ID: <20170413182309.vmyivo3oqrtfhhxt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170412165441.GA17149@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1492016149-18834-4-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170413091535.r6iw7s3pc2znvl6b@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170413160332.GZ3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170413161948.ymvzlzhporgmldvn@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170413165516.GI3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170413170434.xk4zq3p75pu3ubxw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170413173100.GL3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170413174631.56ycg545gwbsb4q2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170413181926.GP3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170413181926.GP3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1068 Lines: 22 On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:19:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > First get me some system-level data showing that the current layout is > causing a real problem. RCU's fastpath code doesn't come anywhere near > the rcu_node tree, so in the absence of such data, I of course remain > quite doubtful that there is a real need. And painfully aware of the > required increase in complexity. > > But if there is a real need demonstrated by real system-level data, > I will of course make the needed changes, as I have done many times in > the past in response to other requests. I read what you wrote here: > > > Increasing it reduces the number of rcu_node structures, and thus the > > > number of cache misses during grace-period initialization and cleanup. > > > This has proven necessary in the past on large machines having long > > > memory latencies. And there are starting to be some pretty big machines > > > running in production, and even for typical commerical workloads. to mean you had exactly that pain. Or am I now totally not understanding you?