Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752135AbdHAORW (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:17:22 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:54583 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751670AbdHAORT (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:17:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:16:54 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Nicholas Piggin , Mathieu Desnoyers , Michael Ellerman , linux-kernel , Boqun Feng , Andrew Hunter , maged michael , gromer , Avi Kivity , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Palmer Dabbelt , Dave Watson Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command Message-ID: <20170801141654.qredbzshlz47lfxy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170728085532.ylhuz2irwmgpmejv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170728115702.5vgnvwhmbbmyrxbf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <87tw1s4u9w.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20170731233731.32e68f6d@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <973223324.694.1501551189603.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20170801120047.61c59064@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20170801081230.GF6524@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170801195717.7a675cc2@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20170801102203.urldoripgbh2ohun@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170801132309.GS3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170801132309.GS3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 730 Lines: 15 On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:23:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:22:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > [ . . . ] > > > As to scheduler IPIs, those are limited to the CPUs the user is limited > > to and are rate limited by the wakeup-latency of the tasks. After all, > > all the time a task is runnable but not running, wakeups are no-ops. > > Can't that wakeup-latency limitation be overcome by a normal user simply > by having lots of tasks to wake up, which then go back to sleep almost > immediately? Coupled with very a low-priority CPU-bound task on each CPU? Let me put it like this; there is no way to cause more interference using IPIs then there is simply running while(1) loops ;-)