lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/15] rcu: Size rcu_node tree from nr_cpu_ids rather than NR_CPUS
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 02:17:33AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:38:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:17:12PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:37:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:47:26PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:05:57PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rcu_node tree array is sized based on compile-time constants,
> > > > > > including NR_CPUS. Although this approach has worked well in the past,
> > > > > > the recent trend by many distros to define NR_CPUS=4096 results in
> > > > > > excessive grace-period-initialization latencies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This commit therefore substitutes the run-time computed nr_cpu_ids for
> > > > > > the compile-time NR_CPUS when building the tree. This can result in
> > > > > > much of the compile-time-allocated rcu_node array being unused. If
> > > > > > this is a major problem, you are in a specialized situation anyway,
> > > > > > so you can manually adjust the NR_CPUS, RCU_FANOUT, and RCU_FANOUT_LEAF
> > > > > > kernel config parameters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > kernel/rcutree.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > > > > index a151184..9098910 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > > > > @@ -2672,7 +2672,7 @@ static void __init rcu_init_geometry(void)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > int i;
> > > > > > int j;
> > > > > > - int n = NR_CPUS;
> > > > > > + int n = nr_cpu_ids;
> > > > >
> > > > > Same question as before: why have this as a variable when it never
> > > > > changes?
> > > >
> > > > Ah, that explains why. This prevented me from forgetting the random
> > > > NR_CPUS.
> > >
> > > Does that mean it can go away now that you've written the patches?
> >
> > If I don't have to change from nr_cpu_ids to yet another thing over
> > the next while, then it might be worth changing.
>
> That sounds like an argument for a #define or a static const, rather
> than a local variable. :)

OK, static const it is!

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-16 17:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans