Re: Does anyone use CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU?

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:47:20PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2012-11-13 13:19 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:56:54PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > On 2012-11-13 09:08 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Suppose that TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was available for !SMP && PREEMPT builds.
> > > > Would that work for you?
> > > 
> > > To be honest I don't really know what the difference is, other than what
> > > the help text says, which is:
> > > 
> > >   [TINY_PREEMPT_RCU] greatly reduces the memory footprint of RCU.
> > >   
> > > "Greatly reduced memory footprint" sounds pretty useful...
> > 
> > OK, so from your viewpoint, the only possible benefit is smaller
> > memory?
> 
> Well, I have no idea.  If I was given the choice between TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU, absent any information not in the description of
> these options, I would choose TINY.  The description suggests that the
> memory savings come at the expense of SMP support, which sounds like a
> great tradeoff to make for a UP system.
> 
> > How much memory does your device have, if I may ask?
> 
> It's a (pretty old!) desktop.  I recently had to upgrade it to two
> gigabytes due to unbearable thrashing with only one...

If you have two gigabytes (or even one gigabyte), you won't notice the
few kilobytes of difference between TINY_PREEMPT_RCU and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/