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 15:15:10 +0200
Message-ID: <20180719131509.GD5595@lerouge>
References: <20180709204248.GF3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1531169145.26547.8.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180709210532.GH3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180709220823.GA18045@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1531319025.8759.57.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180711144303.GQ3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180711164952.GA29994@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <e21c6d7666bfbad1e1c8295559a6ddc7e4110105.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180719003205.GB5595@lerouge>
 <20180719031152.GR12945@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, mhillenb@amazon.de,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180719031152.GR12945@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:11:52PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:32:06AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 09:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > And here is an updated v4.15 patch with Marius's Reported-by and David's
> > > > fix to my lost exclamation point.
> > > 
> > > Thanks. Are you sending the original version of that to Linus? It'd be
> > > useful to have the commit ID so that we can watch for it landing, and
> > > chase this one up to Greg.
> > > 
> > > As discussed on IRC, this patch reduces synchronize_sched() latency for
> > > us from ~4600s to ~160ms, which is nice.
> > > 
> > > However, it isn't going to be sufficient in the NO_HZ_FULL case. For
> > > that you want a patch like the one below, which happily reduces the
> > > latency in our (!NO_HZ_FULL) case still further to ~40ms.
> > 
> > That is interesting. As I replied to Paul, we are already calling
> > rcu_user_enter/exit() on guest_enter/exit_irqsoff(). So I'm wondering why
> > you're seeing such an optimization by repeating those calls.
> > 
> > Perhaps the rcu_user_* somehow aren't actually called from
> > __context_tracking_enter()...? Some bug in context tracking?
> > Otherwise it's a curious side effect.
> 
> David is working with v4.15.  Is this maybe something that has changed
> since then?

Hmm, nope I think the context tracking code hasn't changed for a while.