Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] accelerate grace period if lastnon-dynticked CPU
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Wed Jan 27 2010 - 05:04:43 EST
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:50:50AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 10:43 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Can't you simply check that at runtime then?
> > if (num_possible_cpus() > 20)
> > ...
> > BTW the new small is large. This years high end desktop PC will come with
> > upto 12 CPU threads. It would likely be challenging to find a good
> > number for 20 that holds up with the future.
> If only scalability were that easy :/
> These massive core/thread count things are causing more problems as
> well, the cpus/node ratios are constantly growing, giving grief in the
> page allocator as well as other places that used to scale per node.
> As to the current problem, the call_rcu() interface doesn't make a hard
> promise that the callback will be done on the same cpu, right? So why
> not simply move the callback list over to a more active cpu?
I could indeed do that. However, there is nothing stopping the
more-active CPU from going into dynticks-idle mode between the time
that I decide to push the callback to it and the time I actually do
the pushing. :-(
I considered pushing the callbacks to the orphanage, but that is a
global lock that I would rather not acquire on each dyntick-idle
This conversation is having the effect of making me much more comfortable
adding a kernel configuration parameter. Might not have been the intent,
but there you have it! ;-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/