From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] rcu: limit PREEMPT_RCU configurations
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:04:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241017080439.9od9eoBO@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ed4hrp45.fsf@oracle.com>
On 2024-10-15 15:13:46 [-0700], Ankur Arora wrote:
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> writes:
>
> >>
> >> As for PREEMPT_LAZY, you seem to be suggesting a more intrusive change
> >> than just keeping non-preemptible RCU when the Kconfig options are
> >> consistent with this being expected. If this is the case, what are the
> >> benefits of this more-intrusive change?
> >
> > As far as I understand you are only concerned about PREEMPT_LAZY and
> > everything else (PREEMPT_LAZY + PREEMPT_DYNAMIC or PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
> > without PREEMPT_LAZY) is fine.
> > In the PREEMPT_LAZY + !PREEMPT_DYNAMIC the suggested change
> >
> > | config PREEMPT_RCU
> > | bool
> > | default y if (PREEMPT || PREEMPT_RT || PREEMPT_DYNAMIC)
> > | select TREE_RCU
> > | help
> >
> > would disable PREEMPT_RCU while the default model is PREEMPT. You argue
>
> With PREEMPT_LAZY=y, PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=n, isn't the default model
> PREEMPT_LAZY, which has PREEMPTION=y, but PREEMPT=n?
Correct.
> > that only people on small embedded would do such a thing and they would
> > like to safe additional memory.
> >
> > I don't think this is always the case because the "preemptible" users
> > would also get this and this is an unexpected change for them.
>
> Can you clarify this? The intent with lazy is to be preemptible but
> preempt less often. In that it is meant to be quite different from
> CONFIG_PREEMPT.
A wake up with PREEMPT may not always lead to a preemption but will lead
to preemption once the time slice is up. With LAZY this changes to the
point that a preemption point will be delayed to the sched tick. Tasks
which are not based on the fail class (SCHED_DL, FIFO, …) will receive a
wake up right away.
If in the long term NONE and VOL goes away you could argue that everyone
using LAZY + !DYNAMIC is one of those. If additionally PREEMPT goes away
then you can not. Therefore I would prefer to have the RCU model to be
selectable rather than forced. While !PREEMPT_RCU may save memory, it
also disable preemption for the read section.
> Ankur
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-17 8:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-09 16:54 [PATCH 0/7] Lazy preemption bits Ankur Arora
2024-10-09 16:54 ` [PATCH 1/7] sched: warn for high latency with TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY Ankur Arora
2024-10-10 6:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 18:19 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-13 9:44 ` kernel test robot
2024-10-13 9:54 ` kernel test robot
2024-10-16 9:36 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-10-21 19:21 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-22 5:41 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-10-09 16:54 ` [PATCH 2/7] rcu: limit PREEMPT_RCU configurations Ankur Arora
2024-10-09 18:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-09 18:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-09 20:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-09 21:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-10 7:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-10 14:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-10 6:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 8:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-10 9:13 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 10:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-10 10:26 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-10 14:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-11 8:18 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-11 13:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-11 14:43 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-11 15:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-15 11:22 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-15 22:13 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-17 8:04 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2024-10-17 22:50 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-18 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-18 19:18 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-18 23:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-19 1:07 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-19 4:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-15 23:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-17 7:07 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-18 17:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-21 11:27 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-21 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-21 19:20 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-22 23:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-22 14:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-22 23:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-23 6:58 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 17:35 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-11 7:58 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-15 23:01 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-10 17:42 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-09 16:54 ` [PATCH 3/7] rcu: fix header guard for rcu_all_qs() Ankur Arora
2024-10-10 6:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 8:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-10 14:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-09 16:54 ` [PATCH 4/7] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n, PREEMPT_COUNT=y Ankur Arora
2024-10-09 19:05 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-10 14:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-10 17:59 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-10 6:50 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 17:56 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-11 7:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-09 16:54 ` [PATCH 5/7] rcu: rename PREEMPT_AUTO to PREEMPT_LAZY Ankur Arora
2024-10-09 18:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-09 18:52 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-09 16:54 ` [PATCH 6/7] osnoise: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n, PREEMPTION=y Ankur Arora
2024-10-10 6:53 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 14:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-10 17:50 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-11 7:36 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-14 20:14 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-09 16:54 ` [PATCH 7/7] powerpc: add support for PREEMPT_LAZY Ankur Arora
2024-10-10 7:22 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-10 18:10 ` Ankur Arora
2024-10-11 18:35 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-10-12 22:42 ` Michael Ellerman
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=20241017080439.9od9eoBO@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=ankur.a.arora@oracle.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®