lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 5/5] rcu: Limit expedited helping to every 10 ms or every 4th GP
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:07:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:48:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> This seems like a good place to explain why this is a desirable thing,
> no?

Good point.

> Why would you want to limit this?

Because the unconditional wakeup is a two-edges sword. It reduces
the latency of normal RCU grace periods on the one hand, but it makes
rcu_sched consume even more CPU on the other.

Thanx, Paul

> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 308b6acb4260..247aa1120c4c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3505,10 +3505,19 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void)
> > !atomic_read(&rsp->expedited_need_qs));
> >
> > rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp);
> > - mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex);
> > smp_mb(); /* ensure subsequent action seen after grace period. */
> > - if (rsp->gp_kthread && rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp))
> > - wake_up(&rsp->gp_wq);
> > + if (rsp->gp_kthread && rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) {
> > + static unsigned long nextgp;
> > + static unsigned long nextjiffy;
> > +
> > + if (time_after_eq(jiffies, nextgp) ||
> > + ULONG_CMP_GE(rsp->gpnum, nextgp)) {
> > + nextgp = rsp->gpnum + 4;
> > + nextjiffy = jiffies + 10;
> > + wake_up(&rsp->gp_wq);
> > + }
> > + }
> > + mutex_unlock(&rnp->exp_funnel_mutex);
> >
> > put_online_cpus();
> > }
> > --
> > 1.8.1.5
> >
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-01 16:01    [W:0.135 / U:2.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site