From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Don't chase unnecessary quiescent states after extended grace periods
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:58:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101124005820.GH8056@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1290558673-23580-2-git-send-crap-fweisbec@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:31:12AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> When a cpu is in an extended quiescent state, which includes idle
> nohz or CPU offline, others CPUs will take care of the grace periods
> on its behalf.
>
> When this CPU exits its extended quiescent state, it will catch up
> with the last started grace period and start chasing its own
> quiescent states to end the current grace period.
>
> However in this case we always start to track quiescent states if the
> grace period number has changed since we started our extended
> quiescent state. And we do this because we always assume that the last
> grace period is not finished and needs us to complete it, which is
> sometimes wrong.
>
> This patch verifies if the last grace period has been completed and
> if so, start hunting local quiescent states like we always did.
> Otherwise don't do anything, this economizes us some work and
> an unnecessary softirq.
Interesting approach! I can see how this helps in the case where the
CPU just came online, but I don't see it in the nohz case, because the
nohz case does not update the rdp->completed variable. In contrast,
the online path calls rcu_init_percpu_data() which sets up this variable.
So, what am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
PS. It might well be worthwhile for the online case alone, but
the commit message does need to be accurate.
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index ccdc04c..5f038a1 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -620,8 +620,17 @@ static void __init check_cpu_stall_init(void)
> static void __note_new_gpnum(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> {
> if (rdp->gpnum != rnp->gpnum) {
> - rdp->qs_pending = 1;
> - rdp->passed_quiesc = 0;
> + /*
> + * Another CPU might have taken take of this new grace period
> + * while we were idle and handled us as in an extended quiescent
> + * state. In that case, we don't need to chase a local quiescent
> + * state, otherwise:
> + */
> + if (rdp->completed != rnp->gpnum) {
> + rdp->qs_pending = 1;
> + rdp->passed_quiesc = 0;
> + }
> +
> rdp->gpnum = rnp->gpnum;
> }
> }
> --
> 1.7.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-24 0:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-24 0:31 [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 0:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Don't chase unnecessary quiescent states after extended grace periods Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 0:58 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-11-24 2:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 2:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 6:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 13:48 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 14:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 15:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 16:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 17:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 18:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 20:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 20:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 21:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 21:50 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 22:42 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-25 14:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-26 14:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-29 23:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-24 0:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Stop checking quiescent states after grace period completion from remote Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-24 1:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-25 3:42 ` [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs Lai Jiangshan
2010-11-25 7:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-25 8:35 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-11-25 9:27 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-11-25 14:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20101124005820.GH8056@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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