public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:38:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101125073857.GB2538@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CEDDB2A.2020807@cn.fujitsu.com>

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:42:34AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 08:31 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've observed some not so unfrequent series of spurious rcu
> > softirqs, sometimes happening at each ticks for a random
> > while.
> > 
> > These patches aims at fixing them.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Frederic Weisbecker (2):
> >   rcu: Don't chase unnecessary quiescent states after extended grace periods
> >   rcu: Stop checking quiescent states after grace period completion from remote
> > 
> 
> If we ensure rdp->gpnum >= rdp->completed is always true, the problems as
> you described will not be existed. Or maybe I misunderstand you.
> 
> rdp->gpnum >= rdp->completed is a very important guarantee I think.
> (In my RCURING, it is guaranteed.) I'm afraid there are some other
> problems still hidden if it is not guaranteed.
> 
> so I recommend: (code is better than words)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index d5bc439..af4e87a 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -648,6 +648,13 @@ __rcu_process_gp_end(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_dat
>  
>  		/* Remember that we saw this grace-period completion. */
>  		rdp->completed = rnp->completed;
> +
> +		/* Ensure ->gpnum >= ->completed after NO_HZ */
> +		if (unlikely(rnp->completed - rdp->gpnum > 0
> +				|| rdp->gpnum - rnp->gpnum > 0)) {
> +			rdp->gpnum = rnp->completed;
> +			rdp->qs_pending = 0;


That's an alternative to my first patch yeah. And if rdp->gpnum >= rdp->completed
must be a guarantee outside the rnp lock, then it's certainly better because
the lock is relaxed between rcu_process_gp_end() and note_new_gpnum(), and
both values are async in this lockless frame.

But perhaps this shouldn't touch rdp->qs_pending:

"if (rnp->completed > rdp->gpnum || rdp->gpnum > rnp->gpnum)" is not
a guarantee that we don't need to find quiescent states.

but rnp->completed == rnp->gpnum would provide that guarantee.
That said, note_new_gp_new() would fix the value of rdp->qs_pending.

Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-25  7:39 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
2010-11-25  3:42 ` [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs Lai Jiangshan
2010-11-25  7:38   ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
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=20101125073857.GB2538@nowhere \
    --to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --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