From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org,
niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, patches@linaro.org,
edward.tomlinson@aero.bombardier.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads trainwreck
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:29:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110720192949.GM2313@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyuKTj3zEvWJEx4_RDzLQ+ipJ58UWFYH84nmcwGF_c4aA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:02:47PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> 6 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> looks very scary to me.
> >
> > A lot of that is also relevant to !BOOST.
>
> Can we limit this somehow? Or split it up? Which part of this is "fix
> new BOOST features, not ever even executed without BOOST", and which
> part of this is "fixes core stuff"?
#2 (Fix RCU_BOOST race handling current->rcu_read_unlock_special) and
#7 (align __lock_task_sighand() irq disabling and RCU) are needed only
for RCU_BOOST. The rest fix problems that can occur even with !RCU_BOOST.
I believe that #4 (protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using
irq handlers) turns #1 (decrease rcu_report_exp_rnp coupling with scheduler)
into a longer-term maintenance issue rather than an urgent fix.
> I *really* hate the timing of this. The code that is only impacted by
> BOOST I cannot find it in myself to care about, and I'd be willing to
> consider it basically EXPERIMENTAL and just pulling it.
I can only say that I completely failed in my goal of making my code
go in without a ripple. :-(
> IOW, is the core non-boost fix just a few obvious oneliners?
>
> The "it all broke completely" in previous version of this also doesn't
> make me get all the warm fuzzies. Which all makes me go "what is
> minimal and really really SAFE?"
Peter, does #4 (protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using
irq handlers) remove the need for #5 (Add irq_{enter,exit}() to
scheduler_ipi()) and #6 (Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity)? My guess is
"no" for #5 and "yes" for #6.
If my guess is correct, then the minimal non-RCU_BOOST fix is #4 (which
drags along #3) and #6. Which are not one-liners, but somewhat smaller:
b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 12 ++++++------
b/kernel/softirq.c | 12 ++++++++++--
kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
How would you like to proceed?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-20 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-20 0:17 [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads trainwreck Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 0:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 1/7] rcu: decrease rcu_report_exp_rnp coupling with scheduler Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 2:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 4:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 11:23 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-20 11:31 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-20 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 13:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 0:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 2/7] rcu: Fix RCU_BOOST race handling current->rcu_read_unlock_special Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 0:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 3/7] rcu: Streamline code produced by __rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 0:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 4/7] rcu: protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using irq handlers Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 13:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 0:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 5/7] sched: Add irq_{enter,exit}() to scheduler_ipi() Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 0:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 6/7] softirq,rcu: Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 0:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 7/7] signal: align __lock_task_sighand() irq disabling and RCU Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 1:10 ` [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads trainwreck Ben Greear
2011-07-20 1:30 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-20 2:07 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-20 4:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 5:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 13:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 17:02 ` Ben Greear
2011-07-20 17:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-20 18:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 19:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 19:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 20:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 19:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 19:29 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2011-07-20 19:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-20 19:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-20 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 20:54 ` Ben Greear
2011-07-20 21:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-21 3:25 ` Ben Greear
2011-07-21 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 21:04 ` [GIT PULL] RCU fixes for v3.0 Ingo Molnar
2011-07-20 21:55 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-20 22:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 20:08 ` [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads trainwreck Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 21:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 21:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 10:49 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-20 18:25 ` [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/7 v2] " Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 1/7] rcu: decrease rcu_report_exp_rnp coupling with scheduler Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 2/7] rcu: Fix RCU_BOOST race handling current->rcu_read_unlock_special Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 3/7] rcu: Streamline code produced by __rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 22:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-21 5:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 4/7] rcu: protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using irq handlers Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 5/7] sched: Add irq_{enter,exit}() to scheduler_ipi() Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 6/7] softirq,rcu: Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-20 18:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/urgent 7/7] signal: align __lock_task_sighand() irq disabling and RCU 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=20110720192949.GM2313@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edt@aei.ca \
--cc=edward.tomlinson@aero.bombardier.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.