From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 9ywYAhVyUGrgPQEAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:16:21 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=lists.lttng.org header.i=@lists.lttng.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=JGKOFTjQ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id EC00C1E04F; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:16:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [158.69.130.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7D4F1E04F for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:16:19 -0400 (EDT) ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.2.1 lists.lttng.org 4gxJRl2r9Dz10RG ARC-Seal: i=1; d=lists.lttng.org; s=arc1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1783656979; b=iwg7gZH8SD0eph5d/9DHrfijDcbp7uAE/DnpDLs8Bcb9LqiIZCsg/TsspU5Sz7tk6byz /KPm2B0DecMBPj9d6YGqlOtV+2uAVT258mVFzvoXKxopvICk2lM7rYCt66NbXCwpfBKSw yDPSmadro1ZwVBrmbJ8xPZ/9f/b9FvZpJBrUv0SymQju2UIs+zJXU/Nm5WqEpbPoKeKFl N1U12nkYhujEFEV+4eVUHCriCPlYnrlj1UlndwHtA51iNsiOHdggZEliqmwvFaYDuptej m7F8cXmHFfA4Qf6UGu7UKnqkCjGyI9NdgnrtIXKSG7pqbU9UP6/NDiI7dP6yMXtniMQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=lists.lttng.org; s=arc1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; t=1783656979; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From:From; bh=l3i3e/1a+VsihdwztGA5VoHYX51ALAJbjQucSCy84cQ=; b=qGawB8JxF18ezGxUhmRjrURfKAS0QHz+u/vdBsRsrglyfsGgifCgq8bpGSpVzCaXzlGM pBMekgEyzvE53PKvh9TvjSfTP8W901xDG5k1nar42sbFPPND+Izt3iwc5wrBti7O9dC6f eZiTMZzpOIQDLBbO5kAnHz4lHiUKYroQH6UluoWwMxOr5NsCeTmrigz7EyFmWf6toeem7 DfO4Uwi+LmD9+feGQd232eFFqlbaeuuOSjdjjbY6+vOH+lp7pWvb+23bStIXfwzFzVZm3 uFYTokw65xiTmDW+lC6eTAhMdk5A2VGlZg1f+Rm5p6ttwsic4D5dFIhsWkVmPQkIR+g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.lttng.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip="::1" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 lists.lttng.org 4gxJRl2r9Dz10RG DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1783656979; bh=ZnwlTzNT/EG4PVpMSGnV9pbISQ2kfn5ToqPCWuvY50w=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=JGKOFTjQZwn6mqawyc8uivifL++fJj4nl3DGdE6u0Z5xprfLICuNiJS6m5cRiu81i 4CryuXnUDFOfOzdSpU/kg4joSgHLAR3UwSivgl1FVgQZpJJ0gk5z5+RgQxM1fmpoaP ObwVugWCf5IQh/EkFJRrEGYCBFyLRcKZ+f5vEO7FqYy/Qn+3mu/EZi0nhv/BBf9+GY zShkWDcIhIPE8UOOdlCyMrpludhIk/BrS2QuaGIYLvL+frvdPkHPhM9TcmQneN1i7X VR4sH/YFXsGLRlEP17JosyG13iL+oCqVwNKkjZn6hL9n0yxpeJmEJxlSiD6CXgi9v8 H2uHjygl6xn0g== Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gxJRl2r9Dz10RG; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:16:19 -0400 (EDT) ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.2.1 lists.lttng.org 4gxJRk3tKGz10Hm DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 lists.lttng.org 4gxJRk3tKGz10Hm Received: from tor.source.kernel.org (tor.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4gxJRk3tKGz10Hm for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DB76001A; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 04:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8178F1F000E9; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 04:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 450F3CE0F42; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 21:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 21:07:57 -0700 To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: lttng-dev , Olivier Dion Subject: Re: CPU affinity behavior of liburcu call-rcu per-cpu worker threads Message-ID: <95f2d189-ebe2-47f1-91db-c964f2cda8a7@paulmck-laptop> References: <0600b601-3edf-4897-b319-b4763943809c@efficios.com> <3573944e-3abc-48d7-aedf-3362ebd7ebe4@paulmck-laptop> <38f1f93e-3bfa-425a-96d9-3035c8ecc785@efficios.com> <1aaa979b-bad9-47a5-879b-b4fb2379ad20@paulmck-laptop> <02709be9-d7d8-47cc-8032-ed2e3a714fb0@paulmck-laptop> <14541751-5104-483b-b60c-415d791b4bf4@efficios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14541751-5104-483b-b60c-415d791b4bf4@efficios.com> X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Paul E. McKenney via lttng-dev" Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 10:56:51PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > On 2026-07-09 22:53, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [...] > > > > > And unfortunately, for me, tcmalloc is really not a viable option, > > > because it needs to own the RSEQ area registration, and because glibc > > > cannot use it at the same time as tcmalloc, my benchmarks suffer because > > > glibc has a slower sched_getcpu() implementation. > > > > > > So jemalloc it is. tcmalloc is not usable for me because they don't > > > compose with the rest of the world. I warned the tcmalloc developers > > > many times, but they did not listen. :-( > > > > So an alternative rseq for the rest of us? > > I'm not quite sure I understand. Since there is only one rseq > registration per thread, this means that tcmalloc require their > users to use a GLIBC tunable to disable rseq registration at the > libc level, leaving rseq solely to tcmalloc. Could an independent thing very closely resembling rseq be brought into being alongside the current rseq, so that tcmalloc gets the existing one and everyone else plays nice and shares the new one? Thanx, Paul