Re: [PATCH -tip] cpuacct: Make cpuacct hierarchy walk incpuacct_charge() safe when rcupreempt is used.

[Bharata B Rao]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 03:04:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 19:29 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-17 14:26:01]:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 18:42 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'd like to get the patches in -tip and see the results, I would
> > > > recommend using percpu_counter_sum() while reading the data as an
> > > > enhancement to this patch. If user space does not overwhelm with a lot
> > > > of reads, sum would work out better.
> > > 
> > > You trust userspace? I'd rather not.
> > >
> > 
> > Fair enough.. A badly written application monitor can frequently read
> > this data and cause horrible performance issues. On the other hand
> > large number of CPUs can make the lag even worse. Is it time yet for
> > percpu_counter batch numbers? I've tested this patch and the results
> > were not badly off the mark. 
> 
> I'd rather err on the side of caution here, you might get some crazy
> folks depending on it and then expecting us to maintain it.

So if we want to be cautious, we could use percpu_counter_sum() as
Balbir suggested. That would address both the issues with percpu_counter
that I pointed out earlier:

- Readers are serialized with writers and we get consistent/correct
  values during reads.
- Negates the effect of batching and reads would always get updated/current
  values.

Regards,
Bharata.
--
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/