From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs
 requested
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:14:24 +0200
Message-ID: <20180719131422.GC5595@lerouge>
References: <20180716154015.GA21419@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1531815548.19223.23.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180717125653.GH12945@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180718153628.GA24359@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1531929711.3414.29.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180718163712.GB12945@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1531942865.3414.35.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180718201700.GN12945@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <86d12d1a-46dd-d82a-96c2-e842ac5a2a6c@de.ibm.com>
 <1531984833.12620.16.camel@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        mhillenb@amazon.de, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1531984833.12620.16.camel@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 09:20:33AM +0200, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 08:45 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > 
> > > My thought would be something like this:
> > > 
> > >       if (context_tracking_cpu_is_enabled())
> > >               rcu_kvm_enter();
> > >       else
> > >               rcu_virt_note_context_switch(smp_processor_id());
> > 
> > In the past we needed that (when we introduced that). At least with every
> > host interrupt we called this making an rcu event at least every HZ.
> > Will the changes in need_resched make this part unnecessary?
> 
> Yes, the change in need_resched() should make this part unnecessary.
> Unless your architecture's version of the vcpu_run() loop just loops
> forever even when TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set? :)
> 
> I'm not sure about the context tracking condition in the code snippet
> cited above, though. I think that's what caused my problem in the first
> place — I have CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE && !NO_HZ_FULL. So in 4.15, that
> means rcu_user_enter() did nothing and rcu_virt_note_context_switch()
> wasn't called. Hence the observed stalls.
> 
> Should rcu_user_enter() itself be conditional on CONTEXT_TRACKING not
> NO_HZ_FULL? 

Ah, CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE is only for testing purpose, you should not select
it, it's going to introduce overhead. Actually I should remove that. Although
since we have removed CONFIG_NOHZ_FULL_ALL it's the last way we have to test
NOHZ_FULL from config alone.