From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751549AbcGNQOV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:14:21 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:46299 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751150AbcGNQOT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:14:19 -0400
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:14:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes
Message-ID: <20160714161413.GD30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CALAqxLV2H06M2AxP2kK7pGHjLgQAaGdHB9HJEGZjH_Rouy4WhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713182102.GJ4065@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713183347.GK4065@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CALAqxLU76kVm8b5GNnSk25-Xk6D1efiWtwNJbY1th_pcN9Ks=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713201823.GB29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713202657.GW30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160713203944.GC29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713205102.GZ30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160714131809.GO30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160714145844.GA7760@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160714145844.GA7760@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 04:58:44PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> Of course, this leads to another question: do we really need rcu-sync at
> all, or should we change percpu-rwsem to always work in the "slow" mode
> which is not that slow with your change... I'd like to keep it ;)
> 
> What do you think?

Yes, I think we wants to keep it. There are users where the read size
cost really are performance critical. I still have to repost that lglock
removal series for example, which replaces the fs/locks lglock with a
percpu-rwsem.