linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@gamebox.net>
To: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Levon <levon@movementarian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NMI request/release, version 4
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:20:26 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021024022026.D27739@dikhow> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3DB7033C.1090807@mvista.com>; from cminyard@mvista.com on Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:14:52PM -0500

Well, I haven't looked at the whole patch yet, but some quick
responses -

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:14:52PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> I have noticed that the rcu callback can be delayed a long time, 
> sometimes up to 3 seconds.  That seems odd.  I have verified that the 
> delay happens there.

That kind of latency is really bad. Could you please check the latency 
with this change in kernel/rcupdate.c -

 void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
 {
        if (user ||
-           (idle_cpu(cpu) && !in_softirq() && hardirq_count() <= 1))
+           (idle_cpu(cpu) && !in_softirq() &&
+                               hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT)))
                RCU_qsctr(cpu)++;
        tasklet_schedule(&RCU_tasklet(cpu));

After local_irq_count() went away, the idle CPU check was broken
and that meant that if you had an idle CPU, it could hold up RCU
grace period completion.


> +void release_nmi(struct nmi_handler *handler)
> +{
> +	wait_queue_t  q_ent;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&nmi_handler_lock, flags);
> +	list_del_rcu(&(handler->link));
> +
> +	/* Wait for handler to finish being freed.  This can't be
> +           interrupted, we must wait until it finished. */
> +	init_waitqueue_head(&(handler->wait));
> +	init_waitqueue_entry(&q_ent, current);
> +	add_wait_queue(&(handler->wait), &q_ent);
> +	call_rcu(&(handler->rcu), free_nmi_handler, handler);
> +	for (;;) {
> +		set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +		if (list_empty(&(handler->link)))
> +			break;
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nmi_handler_lock, flags);
> +		schedule();
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&nmi_handler_lock, flags);
> +	}
> +	remove_wait_queue(&(handler->wait), &q_ent);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nmi_handler_lock, flags);
> +}

It might just be simpler to use completions instead -

	call_rcu(&(handler->rcu), free_nmi_handler, handler);
	init_completion(&handler->completion);
	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nmi_handler_lock, flags);
	wait_for_completion(&handler->completion);

and do

	complete(&handler->completion);

in the  the RCU callback.

Also, now I think your original idea of "Don't do this!" :) was right.
Waiting until an nmi handler is seen unlinked could make a task
block for a long time if another task re-installs it. You should
probably just fail installation of a busy handler (checked under
lock).


Thanks
Dipankar

  reply	other threads:[~2002-10-23 20:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-10-22  1:32 [PATCH] NMI request/release Corey Minyard
2002-10-22  2:10 ` John Levon
2002-10-22  2:32   ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-22  2:53     ` John Levon
2002-10-22 13:02       ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-22 15:09         ` John Levon
2002-10-22 16:03           ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-22 17:23         ` Robert Love
2002-10-22 18:08           ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-22 18:16             ` Robert Love
2002-10-22 20:04             ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-10-22 17:53         ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-10-22 18:05           ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-22 18:08             ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-10-22 18:29               ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-22 19:08                 ` John Levon
2002-10-22 21:36                   ` [PATCH] NMI request/release, version 3 Corey Minyard
2002-10-23 17:33                     ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-10-23 18:03                       ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-23 18:57                         ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-10-23 20:14                           ` [PATCH] NMI request/release, version 4 Corey Minyard
2002-10-23 20:50                             ` Dipankar Sarma [this message]
2002-10-23 21:53                               ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-24  7:41                                 ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-10-24 13:08                                   ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-24  7:50                             ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-10-24 13:05                               ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-24 13:28                               ` [PATCH] NMI request/release, version 5 - I think this one's ready Corey Minyard
2002-10-24 14:46                                 ` John Levon
2002-10-24 15:36                                   ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-24 17:18                                     ` John Levon
2002-10-24 17:43                                       ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-24 18:04                                         ` John Levon
2002-10-24 18:32                                           ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-24 18:47                                             ` John Levon
2002-10-24 20:03                                       ` Corey Minyard
2002-10-24 20:29                                         ` John Levon
2002-10-25  1:22                                           ` [PATCH] NMI request/release, version 6 - "Well I thought the last one was ready" Corey Minyard
2002-10-25  1:39                                             ` John Levon
2002-10-25  1:58                                               ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-25  2:01                                               ` [PATCH] NMI request/release, version 7 - minor cleanups Corey Minyard
2002-10-25 13:26                                                 ` [PATCH] NMI request/release, version 8 Corey Minyard
2002-10-22 12:23   ` [PATCH] NMI request/release Suparna Bhattacharya

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=20021024022026.D27739@dikhow \
    --to=dipankar@gamebox.net \
    --cc=cminyard@mvista.com \
    --cc=levon@movementarian.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).