Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:53:28 +0000
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To:     Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>
cc:     Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Eial Czerwacki <eial@scalemp.com>,
        tj@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Shai Fultheim <shai@scalemp.com>,
        Oren Twaig <oren@scalemp.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu/module resevation: change resevation size iff
 X86_VSMP is set
In-Reply-To: <85726648-82f3-6b6b-a749-03c4159e78f3@google.com>
Message-ID: <01000169ea20bd44-f3d23988-e21e-4c0a-8e54-d8e54bbaa237-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <1548071251-1849-1-git-send-email-eial@scalemp.com> <a7eff2ed-0e80-edae-2a97-a3fdab2d05f5@google.com> <20190301203455.GA97188@dennisz-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <c72402f2-967e-cd56-99d8-9139c9e7f267@google.com>
 <010001693b404440-248fa987-624c-4587-940b-56e2ed4226d9-000000@email.amazonses.com> <85726648-82f3-6b6b-a749-03c4159e78f3@google.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.fQZZZ0Xtj2+TD7V5apTT/NrT6QKuPgzCT/IC7XYgDKI=:AmazonSES
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Barret Rhoden wrote:

> > It is very expensive. VMSP exchanges 4K segments via RDMA between servers
> > to build a large address space and run a kernel in the large address
> > space. Using smaller segments can cause a lot of
> > "cacheline" bouncing (meaning transfers of 4K segments back and forth
> > between servers).
> >
>
> Given that these are large machines, would it be OK to statically reserve 64K
> on them for modules' percpu data?

Likely.

> The bug that led me to here was from someone running on a non-VSMP machine but
> had that config set.  Perhaps we make it more clear in the Kconfig option to
> not set it on other machines.  That might make it less likely anyone on a
> non-VSMP machine pays the 64K overhead.

Right.

> Are there any other alternatives?  Not using static SRCU in any code that
> could be built as a module seems a little harsh.

Sorry this ended up in my spam folder somehow. Just fished it out.