[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d53a8af3-46e7-fe6e-5cdd-0421796f80d2@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:05:49 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
bristot@...hat.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] sched/cpuset: Bring back cpuset_mutex
On 4/26/23 07:57, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 04/04/23 13:31, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 3/29/23 08:55, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>> Turns out percpu_cpuset_rwsem - commit 1243dc518c9d ("cgroup/cpuset:
>>> Convert cpuset_mutex to percpu_rwsem") - wasn't such a brilliant idea,
>>> as it has been reported to cause slowdowns in workloads that need to
>>> change cpuset configuration frequently and it is also not implementing
>>> priority inheritance (which causes troubles with realtime workloads).
>>>
>>> Convert percpu_cpuset_rwsem back to regular cpuset_mutex. Also grab it
>>> only for SCHED_DEADLINE tasks (other policies don't care about stable
>>> cpusets anyway).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
>> I am thinking that maybe we should switch the percpu rwsem to a regular
>> rwsem as there are cases where a read lock is sufficient. This will also
>> avoid the potential PREEMPT_RT problem with PI and reduce the time it needs
>> to take a write lock.
> I'm not a big fan of rwsems for reasons like
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230321161140.HMcQEhHb@linutronix.de/, so
> I'd vote for a standard mutex unless we have a strong argument and/or
> numbers.
That is fine for me too.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists