[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170413161948.ymvzlzhporgmldvn@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:19:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/13] rcu: Make RCU_FANOUT_LEAF help text
more explicit about skew_tick
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 09:03:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:55:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > If you set RCU_FANOUT_LEAF too high, you can get lock contention
> > > on the leaf rcu_node, and you should boot with the skew_tick kernel
> > > parameter set in order to avoid this lock contention. This commit
> > > therefore upgrades the RCU_FANOUT_LEAF help text to explicitly state
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > init/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> > > index a92f27da4a27..946e561e67b7 100644
> > > --- a/init/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/init/Kconfig
> > > @@ -612,11 +612,17 @@ config RCU_FANOUT_LEAF
> > > initialization. These systems tend to run CPU-bound, and thus
> > > are not helped by synchronized interrupts, and thus tend to
> > > skew them, which reduces lock contention enough that large
> > > - leaf-level fanouts work well.
> > > + leaf-level fanouts work well. That said, setting leaf-level
> > > + fanout to a large number will likely cause problematic
> > > + lock contention on the leaf-level rcu_node structures unless
> > > + you boot with the skew_tick kernel parameter.
> >
> > Why mention a way out of a problem you shouldn't have to begin with?
> >
> > Just state its bad and result in lock contention and leave it at that.
>
> To avoid people tuning huge machines having to wait for me to give
> them an answer as to why they are suffering lock contention after
> cranking up the value of RCU_FANOUT_LEAF.
>
> Or am I missing your point?
Your answer should be: don't do that then. Not provide them a shady work
around.
tick skew isn't pretty and has other problems (there's a reason its not
on by default). You're then doing two things you shouldn't.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists