public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Very high CPU load when idle with 3.0-rc1
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:46:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1306773981.23844.2.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110530162354.GQ2668@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 09:23 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > @@ -1772,18 +1772,30 @@ static int __init rcu_spawn_kthreads(void)
> >  {
> >  	int cpu;
> >  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > +	struct task_struct *t;
> >  
> >  	rcu_kthreads_spawnable = 1;
> >  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> >  		per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 0;
> > -		if (cpu_online(cpu))
> > +		if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
> >  			(void)rcu_spawn_one_cpu_kthread(cpu);
> > +			t = per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu);
> > +			if (t)
> > +				wake_up_process(t);
> > +		}
> 
> Would it be OK to simplify the code a bit by doing this initial wakeup
> in rcu_spawn_one_cpu_kthread() itself?  My thought would be to rearrange
> rcu_spawn_one_cpu_kthread() as follows:
> 

well, no that would get us back to waking a task affine to an offline
cpu :-)

> > @@ -2209,6 +2221,31 @@ static void __cpuinit rcu_online_kthreads(int cpu)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > + * kthread_create() creates threads in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state,
> > + * but the RCU threads are woken on demand, and if demand is low this
> > + * could be a while triggering the hung task watchdog.
> > + *
> > + * In order to avoid this, poke all tasks once the CPU is fully
> > + * up and running.
> > + */
> > +static void __cpuinit rcu_online_kthreads(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rcu_state->rda, cpu);
> > +	struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > +	struct task_struct *t;
> > +
> > +	t = per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu);
> > +	if (t)
> > +		wake_up_process(t);
> > +
> > +	t = rnp->node_kthread_task;
> > +	if (t)
> > +		wake_up_process(t);
> > +
> > +	rcu_wake_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> 
> Interesting...  So we are really awakening them twice, once at creation
> time to get them to sleep interruptibly, and a second time when the CPU
> comes online.
> 
> What does this second set of wake_up_process() calls do?

Ah, not so, see the initial one is conditional on cpu_online() and will
fail for the CPU_UP_PREPARE case, this new function will be ran from
CPU_ONLINE to then issue the first wakeup.

The distinction comes from the initialize while cpus are already running
vs hotplug.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-05-30 16:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-30  5:59 Very high CPU load when idle with 3.0-rc1 Damien Wyart
2011-05-30 11:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-30 12:17   ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-30 13:10   ` Mike Galbraith
2011-05-30 16:23   ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-30 16:41     ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-30 16:47       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-30 16:46     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-05-30 21:29       ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-30 21:35         ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-31  1:45           ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-30 17:19     ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-30 21:28       ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-30 21:33         ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-31  1:45           ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-01 11:05             ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-06-01 14:37               ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-01 16:58                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-06-01 18:19                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-31 12:30   ` [tip:core/urgent] rcu: Cure load woes tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2011-05-30 11:50 ` Very high CPU load when idle with 3.0-rc1 Damien Wyart
2011-05-30 12:22 ` Morten P.D. Stevens

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1306773981.23844.2.camel@twins \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=damien.wyart@free.fr \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox