Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:32:03 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>,
        maged michael <maged.michael@gmail.com>, gromer <gromer@google.com>,
        Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <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>
 <20170801141654.qredbzshlz47lfxy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170801141654.qredbzshlz47lfxy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20170801233203.GO3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 965
Lines: 21

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:16:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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 ;-)

Very good, that does give us some guidance, give or take context switches
happening during the IPI latency window.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul