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 2/2] rcu: Stop checking quiescent states after grace period completion from remote
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:03:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101124010301.GJ8056@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1290558673-23580-3-git-send-crap-fweisbec@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:31:13AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> After a CPU starts to chase its quiescent states by setting
> rdp->qs_pending to 1, it can still enter into an extended
> quiescent state and then another CPU will take care of this
> and complete the grace period if necessary.
>
> rcu_report_qs_rdp() currently doesn't handle well this case
> and considers it must try later to notify its quiescent state.
>
> However if the last grace period has been completed there is
> nothing left to do for the current CPU.
>
> It means that until a next grace period starts, the CPU that
> runs into that case will keep chasing its own quiescent states
> by raising a softirq on every tick for no good reason.
>
> This can take a while before a new grace period starts and
> this time slice is covered by spurious softirqs and other
> kinds of rcu checks.
>
> Fix this by resetting rdp->qs_pending if the last grace
> period has been completed by a remote CPU while we were
> in an extended quiescent state.
This one looks very good, at least at first glance!!! Queued.
Thanx, Paul
> 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 | 9 +++++++++
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 5f038a1..f287eaa 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -937,6 +937,15 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp, long las
> * race occurred.
> */
> rdp->passed_quiesc = 0; /* try again later! */
> +
> + /*
> + * Another CPU may have taken care of us if we were in an
> + * extended quiescent state, in which case we don't need
> + * to continue to track anything.
> + */
> + if (rnp->gpnum == rnp->completed)
> + rdp->qs_pending = 0;
> +
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> return;
> }
> --
> 1.7.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-24 1:03 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
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 [this message]
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=20101124010301.GJ8056@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