lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 04:50:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 19:13 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:42:00PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so
> > > many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround
> > > unconditionally.
> >
> > OOM prevention should count for something, I would hope.
> >
> > > cond_resched() is in EVERY sleeping lock and in EVERY memory allocation!
> > > And these are really critical paths for many workloads.
> > >
> > > If you really wanted to do this I think you would first need
> > > to define a cond_resched_i_am_not_fast() or somesuch.
> > >
> > > Or put it all behind some debugging ifdef.
> >
> > My first thought was to put it behind CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL, but everyone
> > seems to be enabling that one.
>
> Not everybody, SUSE doesn't even have it enabled in factory.

OK, apologies for the over-generalization.

But you would think that I would have learned this lesson with
CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ, wouldn't you? :-/

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-19 07:01    [W:0.978 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site