[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55F95784.8070608@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:50:28 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [4.2] commit d59cfc09c32 (sched, cgroup: replace
signal_struct->group_rwsem with a global percpu_rwsem) causes regression for
libvirt/kvm
Am 16.09.2015 um 13:03 schrieb Tejun Heo:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:58:00PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> FWIW, I added a printk to percpu_down_write. With KVM and uprobes disabled,
>> just booting up a fedora20 gives me __6749__ percpu_down_write calls on 4.2.
>> systemd seems to do that for the processes.
>>
>> So a revert is really the right thing to do. In fact, I dont know if the
>> rcu_sync_enter rework is enough. With systemd setting the cgroup seem to
>> be NOT a cold/seldom case.
>
> Booting would usually be the hottest operation for that and it's still
> *relatively* cold path compared to the reader side which is task
> fork/exit paths. The whole point is shift overhead from hotter reader
> side. Can you see problems with percpu_rwsem rework?
As I said, it seems the rcu tree with that change seems to work fine on my
system. This needs a more testing on other machines, though. I guess a
revert plus a re-add in the 4.4 merge window should give us enough test
coverage.
Christian
--
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