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.
next prev parent 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