You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is a revert of commit
a424445 ("percpu-refcount: use RCU-sched insted of normal RCU")
which claims the only reason for using RCU-sched is
"rcu_read_[un]lock() … are slightly more expensive than preempt_disable/enable()"
and
"As the RCU critical sections are extremely short, using sched-RCU
shouldn't have any latency implications."
The problem with using RCU-sched here is that it disables preemption and
the release callback (called from percpu_ref_put_many()) must not
acquire any sleeping locks like spinlock_t. This breaks PREEMPT_RT
because some of the users acquire spinlock_t locks in their callbacks.
Using rcu_read_lock() on PREEMPTION=n kernels is not any different
compared to rcu_read_lock_sched(). On PREEMPTION=y kernels there are
already performance issues due to additional preemption points.
Looking at the code, the rcu_read_lock() is just an increment and unlock
is almost just a decrement unless there is something special to do. Both
are functions while disabling preemption is inlined.
Doing a small benchmark, the minimal amount of time required was mostly
the same. The average time required was higher due to the higher MAX
value (which could be preemption). With DEBUG_PREEMPT=y it is
rcu_read_lock_sched() that takes a little longer due to the additional
debug code.
Convert back to normal RCU.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dennis Zhou <[email protected]>
0 commit comments