[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55F9621A.7070803@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:35:38 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [4.2] commit d59cfc09c32 (sched, cgroup: replace
signal_struct->group_rwsem with a global percpu_rwsem) causes regression for
libvirt/kvm
On 16/09/2015 14:22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > The issue is that rcu_sync doesn't eliminate synchronize_sched,
>
> Yes, but it eliminates _expedited(). This is good, but otoh this means
> that (say) individual __cgroup_procs_write() can take much more time.
> However, it won't block the readers and/or disturb the whole system.
According to Christian, removing the _expedited() "makes things worse"
in that the system takes ages to boot up and systemd timeouts. So I'm
still a bit wary about anything that uses RCU for the cgroups write side.
However, rcu_sync is okay with him, so perhaps it is really really
effective. Christian, can you instrument how many synchronize_sched
(out of the 6479 cgroup_procs_write calls) are actually executed at boot
with the rcu rework?
Paolo
> And percpu_up_write() doesn't do synchronize_sched() at all.
--
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