[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120428172127.GE2495@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:21:27 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
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, peterz@...radead.org,
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 Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 06:42:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 08:15 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:36:11AM +0200, Mike Galbraith 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,
> > >
> > > With a distro config (4096 CPUs) interrupt latency is bad even on a
> > > quad. Traversing empty nodes taking locks and cache misses hurts.
> >
> > Agreed -- and I will be working on an additional patch that makes RCU
> > avoid initializing its data structures for CPUs that don't exist.
>
> That's still on my todo list too, your initial patch (and my butchery
> thereof to skip taking lock) showed this helps a heap.
Indeed, I am a bit worried about the safety of skipping the lock in
that case. Either way, if you would rather keep working on this, I
have no problem pushing it further down my todo list.
> > That said, increasing the leaf-level fanout from 16 to 64 should reduce
> > the latency pain by a factor of four. In addition, I would expect that
> > real-time builds of the kernel would set NR_CPUS to some value much
> > smaller than 4096. ;-)
>
> Yup, else you would have heard whimpering months ago ;-)
I am not sure that it would have been exactly whimpering, but yes. ;-)
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