linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: move SRCU grace period work to power efficient workqueue

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: <1393514533.28343.19.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:22:13 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shaibal Dutta <shaibal.dutta@...adcom.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: move SRCU grace period work to power efficient
 workqueue

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 15:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: 
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:26:41AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: 
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > > > Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
> > > > 
> > > > We should also have some facility for moving the SRCU workqueues to
> > > > housekeeping/timekeeping kthreads in the NO_HZ_FULL case.  Or does
> > > > this patch already have that effect?
> > > 
> > > Kevin Hilman and me plan to try to bring a new Kconfig option that could let
> > > us control the unbound workqueues affinity through sysfs.
> > 
> > Handing control to the user seemed like a fine thing, so I started
> > making a boot option to enable it.  Forcing WQ_SYSFS on at sysfs
> > decision spot doesn't go well, init order matters :)  Post init frobbing
> > required if you want to see/frob all unbound.
> 
> I'm curious about the details. Is that because some workqueues are registered
> before sysfs is even initialized?

Yeah.  I put in a test, and told it if not ready, go get ready and flag
yourself as having BTDT (one registration being plenty), but that only
made a different explosion.  Post-init rescan is definitely a better
plan, it can't be worse :)

-Mike

--
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/