From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
mhocko@suse.cz, hare@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] irq_work: Provide a irq work that can be processed on any cpu
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:56:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130905155657.GE19782@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130821144912.1b96c962@gandalf.local.home>
On Wed 21-08-13 14:49:12, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:08:30 +0200
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
>
> > struct irq_work {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> > index 55fcce6..446cd81 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct llist_head, irq_work_list);
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, irq_work_raised);
> >
> > +/* List of irq-work any CPU can pick up */
> > +static LLIST_HEAD(unbound_irq_work_list);
> > +
> > /*
> > * Claim the entry so that no one else will poke at it.
> > */
> > @@ -70,12 +73,16 @@ void irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> > /* Queue the entry and raise the IPI if needed. */
> > preempt_disable();
> >
> > - llist_add(&work->llnode, &__get_cpu_var(irq_work_list));
> > + if (!(work->flags & __IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND))
> > + llist_add(&work->llnode, &__get_cpu_var(irq_work_list));
> > + else
> > + llist_add(&work->llnode, &unbound_irq_work_list);
>
>
> Just for better readability I would have:
>
> if (work->flags & __IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND)
> llist_add(&work->llnode, &unbound_irq_work_list);
> else
> llist_add(&work->llnode, &__get_cpu_var(irq_work_list));
OK, done.
> >
> > /*
> > * If the work is not "lazy" or the tick is stopped, raise the irq
> > * work interrupt (if supported by the arch), otherwise, just wait
> > - * for the next tick.
> > + * for the next tick. We do this even for unbound work to make sure
> > + * *some* CPU will be doing the work.
> > */
> > if (!(work->flags & IRQ_WORK_LAZY) || tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> > if (!this_cpu_cmpxchg(irq_work_raised, 0, 1))
> > @@ -100,28 +107,11 @@ bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void)
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > -static void __irq_work_run(void)
> > +static void process_irq_work_list(struct llist_node *llnode)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > struct irq_work *work;
> > - struct llist_head *this_list;
> > - struct llist_node *llnode;
> > -
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * Reset the "raised" state right before we check the list because
> > - * an NMI may enqueue after we find the list empty from the runner.
> > - */
> > - __this_cpu_write(irq_work_raised, 0);
> > - barrier();
> >
> > - this_list = &__get_cpu_var(irq_work_list);
> > - if (llist_empty(this_list))
> > - return;
> > -
> > - BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> > -
> > - llnode = llist_del_all(this_list);
> > while (llnode != NULL) {
> > work = llist_entry(llnode, struct irq_work, llnode);
> >
> > @@ -146,6 +136,27 @@ static void __irq_work_run(void)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static void __irq_work_run(void)
> > +{
> > + struct llist_head *this_list;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Reset the "raised" state right before we check the list because
> > + * an NMI may enqueue after we find the list empty from the runner.
> > + */
> > + __this_cpu_write(irq_work_raised, 0);
> > + barrier();
> > +
> > + this_list = &__get_cpu_var(irq_work_list);
> > + if (llist_empty(this_list) && llist_empty(&unbound_irq_work_list))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> > +
> > + process_irq_work_list(llist_del_all(this_list));
> > + process_irq_work_list(llist_del_all(&unbound_irq_work_list));
>
> OK, I'm being a bit of an micro optimization freak here, but...
>
> How about moving the list_empty() and BUG_ON into the
> process_irq_work_list() call.
>
> That is,
>
> if (list_empty(llnode))
> return;
>
> BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
>
> That way we avoid the double xchg() that is done with the two calls to
> llist_del_all().
OK, done that.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-05 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-21 8:08 [PATCH 0/4 v6] Avoid softlockups in console_unlock() Jan Kara
2013-08-21 8:08 ` [PATCH 1/4] printk: Remove separate printk_sched buffers and use printk buf instead Jan Kara
2013-08-21 8:08 ` [PATCH 2/4] irq_work: Provide a irq work that can be processed on any cpu Jan Kara
2013-08-21 18:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-09-05 15:56 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2013-08-21 8:08 ` [PATCH 3/4] printk: Defer printing to irq work when we printed too much Jan Kara
2013-08-21 19:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-08-21 8:08 ` [PATCH 4/4] printk: Use unbound irq work for printing and waking Jan Kara
2013-08-21 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-08-21 21:27 ` [PATCH 0/4 v6] Avoid softlockups in console_unlock() Andrew Morton
2013-08-21 22:59 ` Jan Kara
2013-08-22 19:49 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-22 21:57 ` Jan Kara
2013-08-22 22:14 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-23 19:50 ` Jiri Kosina
2013-08-23 19:48 ` Jiri Kosina
2013-08-23 19:58 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-26 11:48 ` Jiri Kosina
2013-09-05 15:46 ` Jan Kara
2013-09-19 21:26 ` Andrew Morton
2013-09-20 21:55 ` Jan Kara
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-11-07 21:48 Jan Kara
2013-11-07 21:48 ` [PATCH 2/4] irq_work: Provide a irq work that can be processed on any cpu Jan Kara
2013-11-07 22:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-11-07 22:19 ` Jan Kara
2013-11-07 22:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-11-07 22:50 ` Jan Kara
2013-11-07 22:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-11-07 23:01 ` Jan Kara
2013-11-07 23:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-11-08 10:18 ` Jan Kara
2013-11-07 22:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-08-14 13:28 [PATCH 0/4 v5] Avoid softlockups in console_unlock() Jan Kara
2013-08-14 13:28 ` [PATCH 2/4] irq_work: Provide a irq work that can be processed on any cpu Jan Kara
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=20130905155657.GE19782@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).