Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] kernel/rcu/tree.c: simplify force_quiescent_state()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Oh, and to answer the implicit question...  A properly configured 4096-CPU
> > system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
> > and a single node at the root level.  If the system is not properly
> > configured, it will have three funnel levels.  The maximum number of
> > funnel levels is four, which would handle more than four million CPUs
> > (sixteen million if properly configured), so we should be good.  ;-)
> > 
> > The larger numbers of levels are intended strictly for testing.  I set
> > CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=2 and CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=2 on a 16-CPU system just
> > to make sure that I am testing something uglier than what will be running
> > in production.  A large system should have both of these set to 64,
> > though this requires also booting with skew_tick=1 as well.
> 
> Right, and I think we talked about this before; the first thing one
> should do is align the RCU fanout masks with the actual machine
> topology. Because currently they can be all over the place.

And we also talked before about how it would make a lot more sense to
align the CPU numbering with the actual machine topology, as that would
fix the problem in one place.  But either way, in the particular case
of the RCU fanout, does anyone have any real data showing that this is
a real problem?  Given that the rcu_node accesses are quite a ways off
of any fastpath, I remain skeptical.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/