Re: [RFC PATCH RT] rwsem: The return of multi-reader PI rwsems

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:30:03 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 03:17:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:36:17 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > It defaults to the total number of CPUs in the system, given the default
> > > setup (all CPUs in a single balance domain), this should result in all
> > > CPUs working concurrently on the boosted read sides.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, it currently defaults to the number of possible CPUs in
> > the system. I should probably move the default assignment to after SMP
> > is setup. Currently it happens in early boot before all the CPUs are
> > running. On boot up, the limit is set to NR_CPUS which should be much
> > higher than what the system has, but shouldn't matter during boot. But
> > after all the CPUs are up and running, it can lower it to online CPUs.
> 
> Another approach is to use nr_cpu_ids, which is the maximum number of
> CPUs that the particular booting system could ever have.  I use this in
> RCU to resize the data structures down from their NR_CPUS compile-time
> hugeness.
> 

OK, also, in doing our benchmarks, there's a big difference with
rt_rw_limit being num_online_cpus and 2 * num_online_cpus. It doesn't
seem to get better adding more than that. This was shown on a case with
12 cpus as well as 8 cpus. Same result.

I really like to see a real use case benefit to find the best default.
But as our mmap_sem stress test shows 2xCPUS as being the best, I'm
going to go with that until someone comes up with a better test.

-- Steve
--
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/