linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] accelerate grace period if last non-dynticked CPU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100127121150.GD12522@basil.fritz.box>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:11:50 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] accelerate grace period if last
	non-dynticked CPU

> From what I can see, most people would want RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=n.  Only

Most people do not recompile their kernel. And even those
that do most likely will not have enough information to make
an informed choice at build time.

> people with extreme power-consumption concerns would likely care enough
> to select this.

What would a distributor shipping binary kernels use?

> > But I think in this case scalability is not the key thing to check
> > for, but expected idle latency. Even on a large system if near all
> > CPUs are idle spending some time to keep them idle even longer is a good
> > thing. But only if the CPUs actually benefit from long idle.
> 
> The larger the number of CPUs, the lower the probability of all of them
> going idle, so the less difference this patch makes.  Perhaps some

My shiny new 8 CPU threads desktop is not less likely to go idle when I do 
nothing on it than an older dual core 2 CPU thread desktop.

Especially not given all the recent optimizations (no idle tick)
in this area etc. 

And core/thread counts are growing. In terms of CPU numbers today's
large machine is tomorrow's small machine.

> I do need to query from interrupt context, but could potentially have a
> notifier set up state for me.  Still, the real question is "how important
> is a small reduction in power consumption?"

I think any (measurable) power saving is important. Also on modern Intel
CPUs power saving often directly translates into performance:
if more cores are idle the others can clock faster.

> I took a quick look at te pm_qos_latency, and, as you note, it doesn't
> really seem to be designed to handle this situation.

It could be extended for it. It's just software after all,
we can change it.

> 
> And we really should not be gold-plating this thing.  I have one requester
> (off list) who needs it badly, and who is willing to deal with a kernel
> configuration parameter.  I have no other requesters, and therefore
> cannot reasonably anticipate their needs.  As a result, we cannot justify
> building any kind of infrastructure beyond what is reasonable for the
> single requester.

If this has a measurable power advantage I think it's better to
do the extra steps to make it usable everywhere, with automatic heuristics 
and no Kconfig hacks. 

If it's not then it's probably not worth merging.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/