From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com, sbw@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 6/7] nohz_full: Add full-system-idle state machine
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:24:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130718142450.GB7398@somewhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130718033921.GL4161@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 08:39:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 03:33:01AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So it's like:
> >
> > CPU 0 CPU 1
> >
> > read I write I
> > smp_mb() smp_mb()
> > cmpxchg S read S
> >
> > I still can't find what guarantees we don't read a value in CPU 1 that is way below
> > what we want.
>
> One key point is that there is a second cycle from LONG to FULL.
>
> (Not saying that there is not a bug -- there might well be. In fact,
> I am starting to think that I need to do another Promela model...
Now I'm very confused :)
I'm far from being a specialist on these matters but I would really love to
understand this patchset. Is there any documentation somewhere I can read
that could help, something about cycles of committed memory or something?
>
> > > Unfortunately, the reasoning in #2 above does not hold in the small-CPU
> > > case because there is the possibility of both the timekeeping CPU and
> > > the RCU grace-period kthread concurrently advancing the state machine.
> > > This would be bad, good catch!!!
> >
> > It's not like I spotted anything myself but you're welcome :)
>
> I will take them any way I can get them. ;-)
>
> > > The patch below (untested) is an attempt to fix this. If it actually
> > > works, I will merge it in with 6/7.
> > >
> > > Anything else I missed? ;-)
> >
> > Well I guess I'll wait one more night before trying to understand
> > the below ;)
>
> The key point is that the added check means that either the timekeeping
> CPU is advancing the state machine (if there are few CPUs) or the
> RCU grace-period kthread is (if there are many CPUs), but never both.
> Or that is the intent, anyway!
Yeah got that.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-18 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-09 1:29 [PATCH RFC nohz_full 0/7] v3 Provide infrastructure for full-system idle Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-09 1:30 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 1/7] nohz_full: Add Kconfig parameter for scalable detection of all-idle state Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-09 1:30 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 2/7] nohz_full: Add rcu_dyntick data " Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-09 9:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-09 13:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-09 1:30 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 3/7] nohz_full: Add per-CPU idle-state tracking Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-09 1:30 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 4/7] nohz_full: Add full-system idle states and variables Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-09 1:30 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 5/7] nohz_full: Add full-system-idle arguments to API Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-09 1:30 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 6/7] nohz_full: Add full-system-idle state machine Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-17 23:31 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-18 0:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-18 1:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-18 3:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-18 14:24 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2013-07-18 16:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-18 22:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-19 0:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-19 2:12 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-19 5:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-24 18:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-24 22:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-24 23:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-26 22:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-27 18:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-09 1:30 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 7/7] nohz_full: Force RCU's grace-period kthreads onto timekeeping CPU Paul E. McKenney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-07-26 23:18 [PATCH RFC nohz_full 0/7] v4 Provide infrastructure for full-system idle Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-26 23:19 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 1/7] nohz_full: Add Kconfig parameter for scalable detection of all-idle state Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-26 23:19 ` [PATCH RFC nohz_full 6/7] nohz_full: Add full-system-idle state machine Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-29 8:19 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-29 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-09 16:20 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-08-14 3:07 ` 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=20130718142450.GB7398@somewhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sbw@mit.edu \
--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