[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161103163326.jkjbncoz7a5oriy5@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:33:27 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: update: make RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT default
On 2016-11-03 09:22:28 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:30:02PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT should speed up the boot process by enforcing
> > synchronize_rcu_expedited() instead of synchronize_rcu() during the boot
> > process. There should be no reason why one does not want this and there
> > is no need worry about real time latency at this point.
> > Therefore make it default.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
>
> Well, it has been awhile since I removed a Kconfig parameter.
>
> So why could this be a bad thing?
>
> 1. Very large systems might see scalability issues with unconditional
> expediting at boot. But if we don't try it, we won't know.
You mean we would make the boot process slower for them instead of
faster?
> 2. People bringing up new hardware might not want quite so many
> IPIs. But they can just set rcu_normal to prevent that.
I wanted to make things simple and not complicated…
> I am therefore queuing it for testiong and review. ;-)
Okay thanks.
> Thanx, Paul
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists