lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless questions
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:05:42 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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
> > linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org 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.

The sysfs knob might be nice, but as far as I know nobody has been
complaining about it.

Besides, we already have the rcutree.kthread_prio= kernel-boot parameter.
So how about if the Kconfig parameter selects either SCHED_OTHER
(the default) or SCHED_FIFO:1, and then the boot parameter can be used
to select other values.

That said, if the lack of a sysfs knob has been causing real problems,
let's make that happen.

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-20 19:21    [W:0.097 / U:10.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site