[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1346956101.18408.61.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:28:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
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,
sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/23] rcu: Control grace-period duration
from sysfs
On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 10:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > - how do I know if my workload wants a longer or shorter forced qs
> > period?
>
> Almost everyone can do just fine with the defaults. If you have more
> than about 1,000 CPUs, you might need a longer period.
Because the cost of starting a grace period is on the same order (or
larger) in cost as this period?
> Some embedded
> systems might need a shorter period -- the only specific example I know
> of is network diagnostic equipment running wireshark, which starts up
> slowly due to grace-period length.
But but but 3 jiffies.. however is that too long?
> > Also, whatever made you want to provide this 'feature' in the first
> > place?
>
> Complaints from the two groups called out above.
Does this really warrant a boot time knob for which even you cannot
quite explain what values to use when?
--
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