Re: [PATCH] rcu: Eliminate softirq processing from rcutree

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

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:10:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 06:12 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: 
> > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:50 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: 
> > > * Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-18 04:25:14 [+0100]:
> > > 
> > > >> ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
> > > >> ># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch
> > > >> >
> > > >> >..those two out does seem to have stabilized the thing.
> > > >> 
> > > >> timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch is on its way out.
> > > >> 
> > > >> rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch confues me.
> > > >> Didn't you report once that your box deadlocks without this patch? Now
> > > >> your 64way box on the other hand does not work with it?
> > > >
> > > >If 'do not raise' is applied, 'use a trylock' won't save you.  If 'do
> > > is this just an observation or you do know why it won't save me?
> > 
> > It's an observation from beyond the grave from the 64 core box that it
> > repeatedly did NOT save :)  Autopsy photos below.
> > 
> > I've built 3.12.8-rt9 with Stevens v2 "timer: Raise softirq if there's
> > irq_work" to see if it'll survive.
> 
> And it did, configured both as nohz_tick, and nohz_full_all.  The irqs
> are enabled warning in can_stop_full_tick() fired for nohz_full_all, but
> that's it.
> 
> For grins, I also applied Paul's v3 timer latency series while testing
> nohz_full_all config.   The box was heavily loaded the vast majority of
> the time, but it didn't explode or do anything obviously evil.

Cool!  May I add your Tested-by?

							Thanx, Paul