From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756147Ab1K2S1I (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:27:08 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:33064 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755338Ab1K2S1F (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:27:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:23:57 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Josh Triplett , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 RFC] rcu: New rcu_user_enter_irq() and rcu_user_exit_irq() APIs Message-ID: <20111129182357.GH2331@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1322515487-18690-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1322515487-18690-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20111128215323.GF30852@leaf> <20111129010036.GS2346@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111129140520.GB20387@somewhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111129140520.GB20387@somewhere> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) x-cbid: 11112918-5112-0000-0000-0000029033A0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:05:23PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:00:36PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 01:53:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:24:47PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > A CPU running in adaptive tickless mode wants to enter into > > > > RCU extended quiescent state while running in userspace. This > > > > way we can shut down the tick that is usually needed on each > > > > CPU for the needs of RCU. > > > > > > Very awesome. I've wanted to see this change for a long time. Thanks! > > > > I am a fan, also. ;-) > > > > [ . . . ] > > > > > > @@ -503,6 +515,18 @@ void rcu_user_exit(void) > > > > __rcu_idle_exit(); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +void rcu_user_exit_irq(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > > + struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp; > > > > + > > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > > + rdtp = &__get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks); > > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nesting != 1); > > > > + rdtp->dynticks_nesting = (LLONG_MAX / 2) + 1; > > > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > > > Any chance that either of these two needs a memory barrier of some kind, > > > to prevent leakage of operations from between them? Or can you count on > > > no RCU-protected operations occurring during (or leaking into) the > > > extended quiescent state? > > > > There is no need for a memory barrier on rdtp->dynticks_nesting because > > it is used (aside from state dumping) only by the local CPU. In contrast, > > changes to ->dynticks are visible to other CPUs, hence the memory barriers > > around changes to ->dynticks. > > > > Information flows within the CPU from ->dynticks_nesting to ->dynticks, > > which is externally visible. > > > > Frederic, given my hamhandedness on the first patch and given that you > > mentioned its being less time critical, I will let you forward port > > patches #3 and #4. I have pushed the first two patches to -rcu, branch > > rcu/dyntick. I will be testing over the evening. > > Sure. Also #3 and #4 are not used upstream, so I should probably rather > carry these in my tree once I do a rebase against yours. Works for me! I am hoping that my dyntick-idle work is near an end. For this round, anyway. (Fifth or sixth rework!) Thanx, Paul