Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/2] rcu: Check for wakeup-safe conditions in rcu_read_unlock_special()

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

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:50:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:18:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 09:09:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 10:22:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > > Or am I missing something that gets the scheduler on the job faster?
> > > 
> > > Oh urgh, yah. So normally we only twiddle with the need_resched state:
> > > 
> > >  - while preempt_disabl(), such that preempt_enable() will reschedule
> > >  - from interrupt context, such that interrupt return will reschedule
> > > 
> > > But the usage here 'violates' those rules and then there is an
> > > unspecified latency between setting the state and it getting observed,
> > > but no longer than 1 tick I would think.
> > 
> > In general, yes, which is fine (famous last words) for normal grace
> > periods but not so good for expedited grace periods.
> > 
> > > I don't think we can go NOHZ with need_resched set, because the moment
> > > we hit the idle loop with that set, we _will_ reschedule.
> > 
> > Agreed, and I believe that transitioning to usermode execution also
> > gives the scheduler a chance to take action.
> > 
> > The one exception to this is when a nohz_full CPU running in nohz_full
> > mode does a system call that decides to execute for a very long time.
> > Last I checked, the scheduling-clock interrupt did -not- get retriggered
> > in this case, and the delay could be indefinite, as in bad even for
> > normal grace periods.
> 
> Right, there is that.
> 
> > > So in that respect the irq_work suggestion I made would fix things
> > > properly.
> > 
> > But wouldn't the current use of set_tsk_need_resched(current) followed by
> > set_preempt_need_resched() work just as well in that case?  The scheduler
> > would react to these at the next scheduler-clock interrupt on their
> > own, right?  Or am I being scheduler-naive again?
> 
> Well, you have that unspecified delay. By forcing the (self) interrupt
> you enforce a timely response.

Good point!  I will give this a go, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul