[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless questions
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:05:42 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <> wrote:
> > > > Real-time priority to use for RCU worker threads (RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO) [0] (NEW)
> > >
> > > Indeed, Linus complained about this one. ;-)
> >
> > :-) Yes, it's an essentially unanswerable question.
> >
> > > This Kconfig parameter is a stopgap, and needs a real solution.
> > > People with crazy-heavy workloads involving realtime cannot live
> > > without it, but that means that most people don't have to care. I
> > > have had solving this on my list, and this clearly increases its
> > > priority.
> >
> > So what value do they use, prio 99? 98? It might be better to offer
> > this option as a binary choice, and set a given priority. If -rt
> > people complain then they might help us in solving it properly.
> I honestly do not remember what priority they were using, it is
> not in email, and I don't keep IRC logs that far back. Adding
> on CC.

As I recall, we started out using fifo:1, but when you get heavy
workloads running at higher fifo priorities, we wanted to boost the rcu
worker threads over those workloads.

Currently the irq threads default to fifo:50, so maybe a good
default choice for the rcu threads on RT is fifo:49. That of course
presumes rational behavior on the part of application developers.

I seem to recall that you and I had a discussion about making this
value a runtime knob in /sys but that didn't go anywhere. Do we need to
crank that up again and just use the config as a default/starting
value? If so then we could just default to fifo:1 and let sysadmins
tweak the value to match up with the workload.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-20 18:41    [W:0.086 / U:7.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site