From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, andi@firstfloor.org, snakebyte@gmx.de,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com,
manfred@colorfullife.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH] Fix rcutree grace-period-latency bug on small systems
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:30:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090105043006.GA22049@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
Kudos to Andi Kleen for finding a grace-period-latency problem! The
problem was that the special-case code for small machines never updated
the ->signaled field to indicate that grace-period initialization had
completed, which prevented force_quiescent_state() from ever expediting
grace periods. This problem resulted in grace periods extending for more
than 20 seconds. Not subtle. I introduced this bug during my inspection
process when I fixed a race between grace-period initialization and
force_quiescent_state() execution.
The following patch properly updates the ->signaled field for the
"small"-system case (no more than 32 CPUs for 32-bit kernels and no more
than 64 CPUs for 64-bit kernels).
I believe that this patch should be included for 2.6.29.
Located-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Tested-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
rcutree.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index a342b03..88d921c 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -572,6 +572,7 @@ rcu_start_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags)
/* Special-case the common single-level case. */
if (NUM_RCU_NODES == 1) {
rnp->qsmask = rnp->qsmaskinit;
+ rsp->signaled = RCU_SIGNAL_INIT; /* force_quiescent_state OK. */
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
return;
}
next reply other threads:[~2009-01-05 4:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-05 4:30 Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-01-05 5:05 ` [PATCH] Fix rcutree grace-period-latency bug on small systems Andi Kleen
2009-01-05 9:10 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20090105043006.GA22049@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=snakebyte@gmx.de \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.