linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Parallelize and economize NOCB kthread wakeups

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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:57:22 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Parallelize and economize NOCB kthread
 wakeups

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:29:38PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 07/02/2014 01:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:08:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> As were others, not that long ago.  Today is the first hint that
> >> I got that you feel otherwise.  But it does look like the softirq
> >> approach to callback processing needs to stick around for awhile
> >> longer.  Nice to hear that softirq is now "sane and normal"
> >> again, I guess.  ;-)
> > 
> > Nah, softirqs are still totally annoying :-)
> > 
> > So I've lost detail again, but it seems to me that on all CPUs that
> > are actually getting ticks, waking tasks to process the RCU state
> > is entirely over doing it. Might as well keep processing their RCU
> > state from the tick as was previously done.
> 
> For CPUs that are not getting ticks (eg. because they are idle),
> is it worth waking up anything on that CPU, or would it make more
> sense to simply process their RCU callbacks on a different CPU,
> if there aren't too many pending?

Give or take the number of wakeups generated...  ;-)

							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/