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  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:	Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:45:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Oleg Nesterov <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 3/9] rcu: Add synchronous grace-period
 waiting for RCU-tasks

On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 03:45:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > But I still very much hate the polling stuff...
> The nice thing about the polling approach is minimal overhead in the
> common case where RCU-tasks is not in use.

No, quite the reverse, there is overhead when its not in use, as opposed
to no overhead at all.

I'm still not convinced we need this 'generic' rcu-task stuff and create
yet another kthread with polling semantics, we want to let the system
idle out when there's nothing to do, not keep waking it up.

So do we really need the call_rcu_task() thing and why isn't something
like synchronize_tasks() good enough?

So the thing is, the one proposed user is very rare (*) and for that
you're adding overhead outside of that user (a separate kthread) and
your adding overhead when its not used.

* I'm assuming that, since tracing is 'rare' and this is some tracing

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists