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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200312181618.GA21271@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200312181702.8443-9-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20200316194754.GA172196@google.com> <CAEXW_YREzQ8hMP_vGiQFiNAtwxPn_C0TG6mH68QaS8cES-Jr3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200316203241.GB3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200316173219.1f8b7443@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20200316173219.1f8b7443@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Mar 2020 17:45:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRtGhiaz+86pTL2WTyx5tqrpjB-bgQbnMLXjSQXPCmYfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/16] rcu-tasks: Add an RCU-tasks rude variant
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@fb.com," <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        dipankar <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 5:32 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:32:41 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > Just curious, why is the "rude" version better than SRCU? Seems the
> > > schedule_on_each_cpu() would be much slower than SRCU especially if
> > > there are 1000s of CPUs involved. Is there any reason that is a better
> > > alternative?
> >
> > The rude version has much faster readers, and the story I hear is that
> > there are not expected to be all that many concurrent updaters.
> >
> > But to get more detail, why not ask Steven why he chose not to use SRCU?
> > (I know the story for the BPF guys, and it is because of SRCU's read-side
> > overhead.)
>
> Same for the function side (if not even more so). This would require adding
> a srcu_read_lock() to all functions that can be traced! That would be a huge
> kill in performance. Probably to the point no one would bother even using
> function tracer.

Point well taken! Thanks,

  -Joel