On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:06:52PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
>
> On 2018-05-29 21:01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:23:36PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >>Hello Paul and folks,
> >>
> >>I've thought the code should've been like the below since the range
> >>checking of jiffies_till_first_fqs and jiffies_till_next_fqs everytime
> >>in the loop of rcu_gp_kthread are unnecessary at all. However, it's ok
> >>even if you don't think it's worth doing it.
> >
> >Nice!
> >
> >>Secondly, I also think jiffies_till_first_fqs = 0 is meaningless so
> >>added checking and adjusting it as what's done on jiffies_till_next_fqs.
> >>Thought?
> >
> >Actually, jiffies_till_first_fqs == 0 is very useful for cases where
> >at least one CPU is expected to be idle and grace-period latency is
> >important. In this case, doing the first scan immediately gets the
> >dyntick-idle state recorded immediately, getting the idle CPUs out of
> >the way of the grace period immediately.
>
> Hi Paul~
>
> You might want to handle it through sysfs. Otherwise, we can do it with
> force_quiescent_state() IMHO.
I agree that sysfs would be better than debugfs because these parameters
are about tuning, not debugging, so good point!
> >So why not do this scan as part of grace-period initialization? Because
> >doing so consumes extra CPU and results in extra cache misses, which is
> >the opposite of what you want on a completely busy system, especially
> >one where the CPUs are context switching quickly. Thus no scan during
> >grace-period initialization.
>
> I am sorry I don't understand this paragraph. :(
Let me try again. ;-)
I could change RCU to avoid the need for jiffies_till_first_fqs == 0,
but doing that would increase CPU consumption for workloads that are
already bottlenecked on the CPU. So I won't be making that change,
so we still need jiffies_till_first_fqs == 0.
> >But I can see the desire to share code.
> >
> >One approach would be to embed the kernel_params_ops structure inside
> >another structure containing the limits, then just have two structures.
> >Perhaps something like this already exists? I don't see it right off,
> >but then again, I am not exactly an expert on module_param.
>
> It would be much nicer if we can as you said. I will check it.
Sounds very good!
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks a lot Paul.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Byungchul
>
