From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Stop checking quiescent states after grace period completion from remote
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:03:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101124010301.GJ8056@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1290558673-23580-3-git-send-crap-fweisbec@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:31:13AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> After a CPU starts to chase its quiescent states by setting
> rdp->qs_pending to 1, it can still enter into an extended
> quiescent state and then another CPU will take care of this
> and complete the grace period if necessary.
>
> rcu_report_qs_rdp() currently doesn't handle well this case
> and considers it must try later to notify its quiescent state.
>
> However if the last grace period has been completed there is
> nothing left to do for the current CPU.
>
> It means that until a next grace period starts, the CPU that
> runs into that case will keep chasing its own quiescent states
> by raising a softirq on every tick for no good reason.
>
> This can take a while before a new grace period starts and
> this time slice is covered by spurious softirqs and other
> kinds of rcu checks.
>
> Fix this by resetting rdp->qs_pending if the last grace
> period has been completed by a remote CPU while we were
> in an extended quiescent state.
This one looks very good, at least at first glance!!! Queued.
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 5f038a1..f287eaa 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -937,6 +937,15 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp, long las
> * race occurred.
> */
> rdp->passed_quiesc = 0; /* try again later! */
> +
> + /*
> + * Another CPU may have taken care of us if we were in an
> + * extended quiescent state, in which case we don't need
> + * to continue to track anything.
> + */
> + if (rnp->gpnum == rnp->completed)
> + rdp->qs_pending = 0;
> +
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> return;
> }
> --
> 1.7.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-24 1:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-24 0:31 [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 0:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Don't chase unnecessary quiescent states after extended grace periods Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 0:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 2:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 2:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 6:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 13:48 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 14:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 15:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 16:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 17:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 18:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 20:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 20:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 21:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 21:50 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 22:42 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-25 14:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-26 14:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-29 23:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 0:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Stop checking quiescent states after grace period completion from remote Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 1:03 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-11-25 3:42 ` [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs Lai Jiangshan
2010-11-25 7:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-25 8:35 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-11-25 9:27 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-25 14:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20101124010301.GJ8056@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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.