Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 2/9] rcu: Provide cond_resched_rcu_qs() to force quiescent states in long loops

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

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:55:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 03:56:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > RCU-tasks requires the occasional voluntary context switch
> > from CPU-bound in-kernel tasks.  In some cases, this requires
> > instrumenting cond_resched().  However, there is some reluctance
> > to countenance unconditionally instrumenting cond_resched() (see
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/603252/),
> 
> No, if its a good reason mention it, if not ignore it.

Fair enough.  ;-)

> > so this commit creates a separate
> > cond_resched_rcu_qs() that may be used in place of cond_resched() in
> > locations prone to long-duration in-kernel looping.
> 
> Sounds like a pain and a recipe for mistakes. How is joe kernel hacker
> supposed to 1) know about this new api, and 2) decide which to use?
> 
> Heck, even I wouldn't know, and I just read the damn patch.

When Joe Hacker gets stall warning messages due to loops in the kernel
that contain cond_resched(), that is a hint that cond_resched_rcu_qs()
is required.  These stall warnings can occur when using RCU-tasks and when
using normal RCU in NO_HZ_FULL kernels in cases where the scheduling-clock
interrupt is left off while executing a long code path in the kernel.
(Of course, in both cases, another eminently reasonable fix is to shorten
the offending code path in the kernel.)

I should add words to that effect to Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt,
shouldn't I?  Done.

							Thanx, Paul