On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 05:08:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:45:39AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On 2/20/2015 9:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:32:39AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >>there's a few others as well that I'm chasing down...
> > >>.. but the flip side, prior to running ring 3 code, why NOT do fast
> > >>expedites?
> > >
> > >So my objections are twofold:
> > >
> > > - I object to fast expedites in principle; they spray IPIs across the
> > > system, so ideally we'd not have them at all, therefore also not at
> > > boot.
> > >
> > > Because as soon as the option exists, people will use it for other
> > > things too.
> >
> > the option exists today in sysfs and kernel parameter...
>
> Yeah, Paul and me have been having this argument for a while now ;-)
Indeed we have. ;-)
And if expedited grace periods start causing latency issues in real-world
workloads, I will address those issues.
In the meantime, one of the nice things about NO_HZ_FULL is that
synchronize_sched_expedited() avoids IPIing CPUs having a single runnable
task that is running in nohz_full mode. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > >And esp. in bootup code you can special case a lot of stuff; there's
> > >limited concurrency esp. because userspace it not there yet. So we might
> > >not actually need those sync calls.
> >
> > yeah I am going down that angle as well absolutely.
> > but there are cases that may well be legit (or are 5 function calls deep
> > into common code)
>
> Good ;-)
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
