[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120426141213.GB2407@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:12:13 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: 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,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 6/6] rcu: Reduce cache-miss
initialization latencies for large systems
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:51:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 09:42 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Commit #0209f649 (rcu: limit rcu_node leaf-level fanout) set an upper
> > limit of 16 on the leaf-level fanout for the rcu_node tree. This was
> > needed to reduce lock contention that was induced by the synchronization
> > of scheduling-clock interrupts, which was in turn needed to improve
> > energy efficiency for moderate-sized lightly loaded servers.
> >
> > However, reducing the leaf-level fanout means that there are more
> > leaf-level rcu_node structures in the tree, which in turn means that
> > RCU's grace-period initialization incurs more cache misses. This is
> > not a problem on moderate-sized servers with only a few tens of CPUs,
> > but becomes a major source of real-time latency spikes on systems with
> > many hundreds of CPUs. In addition, the workloads running on these large
> > systems tend to be CPU-bound, which eliminates the energy-efficiency
> > advantages of synchronizing scheduling-clock interrupts. Therefore,
> > these systems need maximal values for the rcu_node leaf-level fanout.
> >
> > This commit addresses this problem by introducing a new kernel parameter
> > named RCU_FANOUT_LEAF that directly controls the leaf-level fanout.
> > This parameter defaults to 16 to handle the common case of a moderate
> > sized lightly loaded servers, but may be set higher on larger systems.
>
> Wouldn't it be much better to match the rcu fanout tree to the physical
> topology of the machine?
>From what I am hearing, doing so requires me to morph the rcu_node tree
at run time. I might eventually become courageous/inspired/senile
enough to try this, but not yet. ;-)
Actually, some of this topology shifting seems to me like a firmware
bug. Why not arrange the Linux-visible numbering in a way to promote
locality for code sequencing through the CPUs?
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists