linux-kernel - Re: Does anyone use CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT

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: <20121113211952.GC2489@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:19:52 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: Does anyone use CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:56:54PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2012-11-13 09:08 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:46:20AM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > On 2012-11-12 16:49 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > > 
> > > > I know of people using TINY_RCU, TREE_RCU, and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, but I
> > > > have not heard of anyone using TINY_PREEMPT_RCU for whom TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > was not a viable option (in contrast, the people running Linux on
> > > > tiny-memmory systems typically use TINY_RCU).  Of course, if no one
> > > > really needs it, the proper thing to do is to remove it.
> > > > 
> > > > So, if you need TINY_PREEMPT_RCU, please let me know.  Otherwise, I will
> > > > remove it, probably in the 3.9 timeframe.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I use TINY_PREEMPT_RCU on my UP machines.  It is, in fact, the only
> > > option.
> > 
> > Suppose that TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was available for !SMP && PREEMPT builds.
> > Would that work for you?
> 
> To be honest I don't really know what the difference is, other than what
> the help text says, which is:
> 
>   [TINY_PREEMPT_RCU] greatly reduces the memory footprint of RCU.
>   
> "Greatly reduced memory footprint" sounds pretty useful...

OK, so from your viewpoint, the only possible benefit is smaller
memory?  How much memory does your device have, if I may ask?

> As a side note, I wonder why any of these RCU implementations are
> user-seclectable options in the first place?  It looks like you will
> only ever have one choice, since the dependencies all seem mutually
> exclusive:
> 
>   TREE_RCU         depends on !PREEMPT &&  SMP
>   TREE_PREEMPT_RCU depends on  PREEMPT &&  SMP
>   TINY_RCU         depends on !PREEMPT && !SMP
>   TINY_PREEMPT_RCU depends on  PREEMPT && !SMP

Inertia on my part.  ;-)

							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/