Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751620AbXAZVoi (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:44:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751659AbXAZVoh (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:44:37 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:56513 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751620AbXAZVoh (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:44:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:25:45 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: dipankar@in.ibm.com Cc: Ingo Molnar , Paul E McKenney , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [mm PATCH 4/6] RCU: preemptible RCU Message-Id: <20070126132545.722c787c.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20070126210017.GC17134@in.ibm.com> References: <20070115191909.GA32238@in.ibm.com> <20070115192858.GE32238@in.ibm.com> <20070123163259.0d1d5ffc.akpm@osdl.org> <20070126210017.GC17134@in.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1754 Lines: 40 On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:30:17 +0530 Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > As a consequence of keeping track of RCU readers, the readers > > > have a slight overhead (optimizations in the paper). > > > This implementation co-exists with the "classic" RCU > > > implementations and can be switched to at compiler. > > > > That's yet another question we need to ask people when their kernel dies, > > and yet another deviation between the kernels which we all test, causing > > more dilution of testing efforts. It would be much better if we could > > remove classic RCU. You say this would incur extra cost, but the magnitude > > of that cost is not clear. Please help us make that decision. > > See the Table 2, page 10 of the paper mentioned above. argh. Seems I have to wade through half the paper to understand Table 2. > There is a > ~100ns cost per read-side critical section involved in the preemptible > version of RCU at the moment. Until, we are sure that we don't have > an impact on common workloads, we need to keep the "classic" > implementation around. Ratios, please.. that 100ns appears to be a 100% increase. ie 100ns -> 200ns. There are a couple of ways of working out how much that really matters: a) run a workload or b) instrument a kernel, work out how many times/sec the kernel runs rcu_read_lock(). I suspect b) would be more useful and informative. Either way, please always prepare such info up-front and summarise in the changelog? It's kinda important... - 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/