Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262527AbUCWMqO (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:46:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262522AbUCWMqN (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:46:13 -0500 Received: from ppp-217-133-42-200.cust-adsl.tiscali.it ([217.133.42.200]:27083 "EHLO dualathlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262527AbUCWMp7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:45:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:46:51 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Dipankar Sarma Cc: tiwai@suse.de, Robert Love , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU for low latency (experimental) Message-ID: <20040323124651.GK22639@dualathlon.random> References: <20040323101755.GC3676@in.ibm.com> <20040323122925.GH22639@dualathlon.random> <20040323123426.GG3676@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040323123426.GG3676@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49 C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43 X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1796 Lines: 30 On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:04:26PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > I have a patch for that too which I have been testing for DoS in > route cache, not latency. It is worth testing it here, however > I think re-arming tasklets is not as friendly to latency as > executing the rcu callbacks from process context. One thing > I have noticed is that more softirqs worsen latency irrespective > of the worst-case softirq length. if we keep getting new interrupts in a flood, we'll also execute those callbacks in a flood, that's why the number of callbacks executed must be very small for every tasklet, the cost of the tasklet should be small compared to the whole cost of the irq taking to hardware too, so I don't see much problems with softirqs, if you don't get a flood of hw-irqs, the callback load will be offloaded to ksoftirqd etc... softirqs are also guaranteed to make progress despite not running RT. That's the best for you. eventd must run RT. And if you don't make your userspace krcud RT you can run a box out of memory with a RT application, while if you make it RT you'll again generate the latencies making krcud useless. this is btw, why I implemented rcu_poll using softirqs, problem is that softirqs are so low latency that we couldn't coalesce many callbacks together to maximze icache and so we've to reach less quiescient points per second to do the same work etc... so we delay it at the next irq, that's fine, but if there's too much work to do, going back to the softirq model like in rcu_poll sounds the natural way to go. - 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/