lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [21]   [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, 20 Apr 2015 18:22:58 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:50:07PM -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:15:04 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:40:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:09:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, what priority is this for anyway. To change the priority of the boost
> > > > value at run time, do we only need to change the priority of the rcub threads?
> > > >
> > > > And the priority of the other rcu threads can change as well with a simple
> > > > chrt?
> > > >
> > > > If that's the case, then we don't need a sysctl knob at all.
> > >
> > > For the grace-period kthreads and the boost kthread, that is the case.
> > > It is also the case for the per-CPU kthreads that invoke RCU callbacks
> > > for the non-offloaded RCU_BOOST configuration (and that replace all
> > > softirq RCU work in -rt).
> > >
> > > So, should I just ditch all of the priority-setting within RCU and tell
> > > users to just use chrt?
> >
> > Looks to me like all we need to do is tell people if they need a boost
> > higher than the compiled in default (RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO), then chrt the
> > priority of the rcub thread to the desired priority.
>
> There's the rub. They also need to chrt the RCU grace-period kthreads
> as well as the per-CPU kthreads (rcuc). Which is a pain and easy to
> get wrong.
>
> So at this point, I am leaning towards keeping RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO, but
> hiding it behind RCU_EXPERT. Someone in an emergency situation can use
> chrt to get RCU going, at least assuming that they had the foresight to
> leave a prio-99 shell running somewhere and assuming that they do the
> chrt before the system hits OOM. But they have to do all that anyway
> if they were to use a sysfs or similar interface. And it is easy to
> tell when you have boosted all the necessary kthreads because RCU
> grace periods start advancing once again. You don't get that feedback
> when you set things up at boot time. ;-)
>
> So again, at least for the moment, I believe that RCU need not provide
> a run-time interface for changing RCU kthread priorities, that the
> RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO Kconfig parameter should remain, except that it needs
> to be hidden behind RCU_EXPERT, and that the rcutree.kthread_prio=
> kernel-boot parameter should also remain.
>
> Seem reasonable?
>

Does chrt override the kthread_prio at run time? If so, then great.
Otherwise, the sysadmin should still have a way to control their
priorities of kernel threads (with few exceptions like the migration
thread).

-- Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-21 15:41    [W:0.109 / U:11.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site