From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] synchronize_rcu(): high latency on idle system
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:33:09 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
References: <20080112012626.GI28570@kvack.org> <1200129791.7999.5.camel@lappy>
In-Reply-To: <1200129791.7999.5.camel@lappy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200801121833.09508.ak@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1508
Lines: 31

On Saturday 12 January 2008 10:23:11 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:26 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> > 
> > I'd like to put the patch below out for comments to see if folks think the 
> > approach is a valid fix to reduce the latency of synchronize_rcu().  The 
> > motivation is that an otherwise idle system takes about 3 ticks per network 
> > interface in unregister_netdev() due to multiple calls to synchronize_rcu(), 
> > which adds up to quite a few seconds for tearing down thousands of 
> > interfaces.  By flushing pending rcu callbacks in the idle loop, the system 
> > makes progress hundreds of times faster.  If this is indeed a sane thing to, 
> > it probably needs to be done for other architectures than x86.  And yes, the 
> > network stack shouldn't call synchronize_rcu() quite so much, but fixing that 
> > is a little more involved.
> 
> So, instead of only relying on the tick to drive the RCU state machine,
> you add the idle loop to it. This seems to make sense, esp because nohz
> is held off until rcu is idle too.

For NOHZ I agree it would be probably better to just force a quiescent
cycle than to schedule a one jiffie tick like it is currently done.

For non NOHZ I'm not so sure.

-Andi
--
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/