[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC&PATCH] Alternative RCU implementation
On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 14:52, Paul E. McKenney wrote: 
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 01:13:41PM -0400, Jim Houston wrote:
> > I know that I'm questioning one of your design goals for RCU by adding
> > overhead to the read-side. I have read everything I could find on RCU.
> > My belief is that the cost of the xchg() instruction is small
> > compared to the cache benifit of freeing memory more quickly.
> > I think it's more interesting to look at the impact of the xchg() at the
> > level of an entire system call. Adding 30 nanoseconds to a open/close
> > path that tasks 3 microseconds seems reasonable. It is hard to measure
> > the benefit of reusing the a dcache entry more quickly.
> Hello, Jim,
> The other thing to keep in mind is that reducing the grace-period
> duration increases the per-access overhead, since each grace period
> incurs a cost. So there is a balance that needs to be struck between
> overflowing memory with a too-long grace period and incurring too
> much overhead with a too-short grace period.
> How does the rest of the kernel work with all interrupts to
> a particular CPU shut off? For example, how do you timeslice?
> Thanx, Paul
> PS. My concerns with some aspects of your design aside, your
> getting a significant change to the RCU infrastructure to
> work reasonably well is quite impressive!

Hi Paul,

I have two module parameters in the patch which can be used to
tune how often grace periods are started. They can be set at boot
time as follows:

The per-cpu count of queued requests at which to
start a new batch. Patch defaults to 256.

Timeout value in jiffies at which to start a batch.
Defaults to HZ/10.

I picked the defaults to start batches with similar frequency to
the existing code.

I tested a dual processor with rcupdate.rcu_max_count=0. This
will start a grace period for every call_rcu(). I ran
my rename test this way and it worked suprisingly well.

I maintain a nxtbatch value which lets me check if the grace period
for the entries in the nxt list has started or perhaps already
completed. I check this in call_rcu() and avoid mixing batches.
Any requests queued before the batch was started will be completed
at the end of the grace period. Unless a very small rcu_max_count
value is used, there is likely to be some delay between completing
a grace period and needing to start another.

> How does the rest of the kernel work with all interrupts to
> a particular CPU shut off? For example, how do you timeslice?

It's a balancing act. In some cases we just document the
missing functionality. If the local timer is disabled on a cpu,
all processes are SCHED_FIFO. In the case of Posix timers, we
move timers to honor the procesor shielding an the process affinity.

Jim Houston

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.076 / U:3.936 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site