[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160714120845.GE15005@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:08:45 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
locking changes
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 02:04:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I think it probably makes sense to make this the default on !RT at
> > least with a separate patch w/o stable cc'd. While most use cases
> > will be fine with the latency on write path, it also means that the
> > reader side is blocked for the duration which can hurt. rwsem implies
> > a lot more readers and thus more read lock operations than writes.
> > It's weird to trade off higher latency for lower cpu usage when it
> > would also slow down all readers.
>
> NAK, no expedited muck by default. There's more than just RT that
> doesn't like IPI sprays.
Can you elaborate? If that's the case, we have the wrong implemention
for percpu-rwsem where very long delays for writers induce the same
level of delays to all readers. If expedited by default isn't
workable, we should move away from rcu_sync for percpu_rwsem.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists