From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-f180.google.com (mail-yk0-f180.google.com [209.85.160.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABADE6B0037 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 19:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q9so4068477ykb.25 for ; Fri, 09 May 2014 16:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (e37.co.us.ibm.com. [32.97.110.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w75si7314094yhh.156.2014.05.09.16.47.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 09 May 2014 16:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e37.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 9 May 2014 17:47:49 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287E03E4003F for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 17:47:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s49Nll2v000504 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 01:47:47 +0200 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s49NpbL8021436 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 17:51:38 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:47:45 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: vmstat: On demand vmstat workers V4 Message-ID: <20140509234745.GB8754@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20140508142903.c2ef166c95d2b8acd0d7ea7d@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , Gilad Ben-Yossef , Tejun Heo , Mike Frysinger , Minchan Kim , Hakan Akkan , Max Krasnyansky , Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, hughd@google.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , John Stultz On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:57:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 9 May 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 9 May 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > I understand why you want to get this done by a housekeeper, I just > > > did not understand why we need this whole move it around business is > > > required. > > > > This came about because of another objection against having it simply > > fixed to a processor. After all that processor may be disabled etc etc. > > I really regret that I did not pay more attention (though my cycle > constraints simply do not allow it). As far as I can see, the NO_HZ_FULL timekeeping CPU is always zero. If it can change in NO_HZ_FULL kernels, RCU will do some very strange things! One possible issue here is that Christoph's patch is unconditional. It takes effect for both NO_HZ_FULL and !NO_HZ_FULL. If I recall correctly, the timekeeping CPU -can- change in !NO_HZ_FULL kernels, which might be what Christoph was trying to take into account. > This is the typical overengineering failure: > > Before we even have a working proof that we can solve the massive > complex basic problem with the price of a dedicated housekeeper, we > try to make the housekeeper itself a moving target with the price of > making the problem exponential(unknown) instead of simply unknown. > > I really cannot figure out why a moving housekeeper would be a > brilliant idea at all, but I'm sure there is some magic use case in > some other disjunct universe. > > Whoever complained and came up with the NOT SO brilliant idea to make > the housekeeper a moving target, come please forth and explain: > > - How this can be done without having a working solution with a > dedicated housekeeper in the first place > > - How this can be done without knowing what implication it has w/o > seing the complexity of a dedicated housekeeper upfront. > > Keep it simple has always been and still is the best engineering > principle. If someone decides to make tick_do_timer_cpu non-constant in NO_HZ_FULL CPUs, they will break unless/until I make RCU deal with that sort of thing, at least for NO_HZ_FULL_SYSIDLE kernels. ;-) > We all know that we can do large scale overhauls in a very controlled > way if the need arises. But going for the most complex solution while > not knowing whether the least complex solution is feasible at all is > outright stupid or beyond. > > Unless someone comes up with a reasonable explantion for all of this I > put a general NAK on patches which are directed to kernel/time/* > > Correction: > > I'm taking patches right away which undo any damage which has been > applied w/o me noticing because I trusted the responsible developers / > maintainers. > > Preferrably those patches arrive before my return from LinuxCon Japan. I could easily have missed something, but as far as I know, there is nothing in the current kernel that allows tick_do_timer_cpu to move in NO_HZ_FULL kernels. Hmmm... Well, I -do- have a gratuitous ACCESS_ONCE() around one fetch of tick_do_timer_cpu that happens only in NO_HZ_FULL kernels. I will remove it. Thanx, Paul > Thanks, > > tglx > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org