From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>,
Romanov Arya <romanov.arya@gmail.com>,
Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] kernel/rcu/tree.c: simplify force_quiescent_state()
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:28:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140623102850.GX19860@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140617173717.GA28198@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
> system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
> and a single node at the root level. If the system is not properly
> configured, it will have three funnel levels. The maximum number of
> funnel levels is four, which would handle more than four million CPUs
> (sixteen million if properly configured), so we should be good. ;-)
>
> The larger numbers of levels are intended strictly for testing. I set
> CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=2 and CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=2 on a 16-CPU system just
> to make sure that I am testing something uglier than what will be running
> in production. A large system should have both of these set to 64,
> though this requires also booting with skew_tick=1 as well.
Right, and I think we talked about this before; the first thing one
should do is align the RCU fanout masks with the actual machine
topology. Because currently they can be all over the place.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-23 10:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-17 2:55 Pranith Kumar
2014-06-17 14:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 16:01 ` Romanov Arya
2014-06-17 16:56 ` Waiman Long
2014-06-17 17:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 20:06 ` Waiman Long
2014-06-23 10:28 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-06-23 15:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-23 17:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-23 18:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-23 19:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 17:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 18:22 ` Pranith Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140623102850.GX19860@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=romanov.arya@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome