Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:58:25AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just 
> > > > > have per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake 
> > > > > them up via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP 
> > > > > cross call (wakeups do immediate cross-calls already).
> > > > 
> > > > My concern with this is that the cache misses accessing all the 
> > > > processes on this single waitqueue would be serialized, slowing 
> > > > things down. In contrast, the bitmask that smp_call_function() 
> > > > traverses delivers on the order of a thousand CPUs' worth of bits 
> > > > per cache miss.  I will give it a try, though.
> > > 
> > > At least if you go via the migration threads, you can queue up 
> > > requests to them locally. But there's going to be cachemisses 
> > > _anyway_, since you have to access them all from a single CPU, 
> > > and then they have to fetch details about what to do, and then 
> > > have to notify the originator about completion.
> > 
> > Ah, so you are suggesting that I use smp_call_function() to run 
> > code on each CPU that wakes up that CPU's migration thread?  I 
> > will take a look at this.
> 
> My suggestion was to queue up a dummy 'struct migration_req' up with 
> it (change migration_req::task == NULL to mean 'nothing') and simply 
> wake it up using wake_up_process().

OK.  I was thinking of just using wake_up_process() without the
migration_req structure, and unconditionally setting a per-CPU
variable from within migration_thread() just before the list_empty()
check.  In your approach we would need a NULL-pointer check just
before the call to __migrate_task().

> That will force a quiescent state, without the need for any extra 
> information, right?

Yep!

> This is what the scheduler code does, roughly:
> 
>                 wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread);
>                 wait_for_completion(&req.done);
> 
> and this will always have to perform well. The 'req' could be put 
> into PER_CPU, and a loop could be done like this:
> 
> 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>                 wake_up_process(cpu_rq(cpu)->migration_thread);
> 
> 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>                 wait_for_completion(&per_cpu(req, cpu).done);
> 
> hm?

My concern is the linear slowdown for large systems, but this should be
OK for modest systems (a few 10s of CPUs).  However, I will try it out --
it does not need to be a long-term solution, after all.

							Thanx, Paul