From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] rcu: Check for spurious wakeup using return value
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:27:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140724202755.GU11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53D165A5.6010206@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 03:59:33PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Adding peterz to CC as git blames him for wait_event code. :)
>
> (original LKML link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/23/45)
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >> If we care about what wait_event_interruptible() returns, we can go
> >> back and wait for an actual wakeup much earlier without the additional
> >> overhead of calling rcu_gp_init().
> >
> > The key phrase here is "If we care". Should we care? If so, why?
> >
> > I suggest running some random benchmark and counting how many times
> > rcu_gp_init() is called and how many times rcu_gp_init() returns
> > because ->gp_flags is not set. If rcu_gp_init() returns because
> > ->gp_flags is not set a significant fraction of the time, then this
> > -might- be worth worrying about. (Extra credit: Under what conditions
>
> In the grand scheme of things, I agree that minor optimizations may not seem
> to be worth much. But when the optimizationss are straight forward and
> are _actually_ improving things, even by a small margin, I think they are
> worth considering.
>
> Think of the billions of cycles we will save ;-)
If there are significant savings. You have yet to demonstrate this.
In fact, you have yet to demonstrate that your change doesn't make
things worse.
Thanx, Paul
> > -might- be worth worrying about. (Extra credit: Under what conditions
> > would it be worth worrying about, and how would you go about checking
> > to see whether those conditions hold?)
> >
>
>
> --
> Pranith
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-24 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-23 5:09 [PATCH 00/16] rcu: Some minor fixes and cleanups Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 01/16] rcu: Use rcu_num_nodes instead of NUM_RCU_NODES Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 02/16] rcu: Check return value for cpumask allocation Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 12:49 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 17:14 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 03/16] rcu: Fix comment for gp_state field values Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 04/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for an online CPU Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 13:23 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 13:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 14:01 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 14:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 15:07 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 15:21 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 05/16] rcu: Add noreturn attribute to boost kthread Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 06/16] rcu: Clear gp_flags only when actually starting new gp Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 07/16] rcu: Save and restore irq flags in rcu_gp_cleanup() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 08/16] rcu: Clean up rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 09/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for online cpu Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 12:59 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 13:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 14:12 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 14:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 15:11 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 15:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 15:44 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 19:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 20:01 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 20:16 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 20:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 10/16] rcu: Check for RCU_FLAG_GP_INIT bit in gp_flags for spurious wakeup Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 11/16] rcu: Check for spurious wakeup using return value Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-24 2:36 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-24 3:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-24 4:03 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-24 18:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-24 19:59 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-24 20:27 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 12/16] rcu: Rename rcu_spawn_gp_kthread() to rcu_spawn_kthreads() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 13/16] rcu: Spawn nocb kthreads from rcu_prepare_kthreads() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 14/16] rcu: Remove redundant checks for rcu_scheduler_fully_active Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 15/16] rcu: Check for a nocb cpu before trying to spawn nocb threads Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 13:14 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 13:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 16/16] rcu: kvm.sh: Fix error when you pass --cpus argument Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 14:45 ` [PATCH 00/16] rcu: Some minor fixes and cleanups Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-27 1:10 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-27 3:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140724202755.GU11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).