From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, andi@firstfloor.org, snakebyte@gmx.de,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com,
manfred@colorfullife.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH] Fix rcutree grace-period-latency bug on small systems
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:30:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090105043006.GA22049@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
Kudos to Andi Kleen for finding a grace-period-latency problem! The
problem was that the special-case code for small machines never updated
the ->signaled field to indicate that grace-period initialization had
completed, which prevented force_quiescent_state() from ever expediting
grace periods. This problem resulted in grace periods extending for more
than 20 seconds. Not subtle. I introduced this bug during my inspection
process when I fixed a race between grace-period initialization and
force_quiescent_state() execution.
The following patch properly updates the ->signaled field for the
"small"-system case (no more than 32 CPUs for 32-bit kernels and no more
than 64 CPUs for 64-bit kernels).
I believe that this patch should be included for 2.6.29.
Located-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Tested-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
rcutree.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index a342b03..88d921c 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -572,6 +572,7 @@ rcu_start_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags)
/* Special-case the common single-level case. */
if (NUM_RCU_NODES == 1) {
rnp->qsmask = rnp->qsmaskinit;
+ rsp->signaled = RCU_SIGNAL_INIT; /* force_quiescent_state OK. */
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
return;
}
next reply other threads:[~2009-01-05 4:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-05 4:30 Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-01-05 5:05 ` [PATCH] Fix rcutree grace-period-latency bug on small systems Andi Kleen
2009-01-05 9:10 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20090105043006.GA22049@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=snakebyte@gmx.de \
/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