From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
hch@lst.de, axboe@kernel.dk, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, fweisbec@gmail.com,
oleg@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 6/6] rcu/tree: Use irq_work_queue_remote()
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:15:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201028201554.GE3249@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201028200243.GJ2651@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 09:02:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 03:54:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:07:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > AFAICT we only need/use irq_work_queue_on() on remote CPUs, since we
> > > can directly access local state. So avoid the IRQ_WORK dependency and
> > > use the unconditionally available irq_work_queue_remote().
> > >
> > > This survives a number of TREE01 runs.
> >
> > OK, Paul mentioned on IRC that while it is extremely unlikely, this code
> > does not indeed guarantee it will not try to IPI self.
> >
> > I'll try again.
>
> This is the best I could come up with.. :/
>
> ---
> Subject: rcu/tree: Use irq_work_queue_remote()
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Date: Wed Oct 28 11:53:40 CET 2020
>
> All sites that consume rcu_iw_gp_seq seem to have rcu_node lock held,
> so setting it probably should too. Also the effect of self-IPI here
> would be setting rcu_iw_gp_seq to the value we just set it to
> (pointless) and clearing rcu_iw_pending, which we just set, so don't
> set it.
>
> Passes TREE01.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1308,14 +1308,16 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(stru
> resched_cpu(rdp->cpu);
> WRITE_ONCE(rdp->last_fqs_resched, jiffies);
> }
> -#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_WORK
> + raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp);
The caller of rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() already holds this lock.
Please see the force_qs_rnp() function and its second call site,
to which rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() is passed as an argument.
But other than that, this does look plausible. And getting rid of
that #ifdef is worth something. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> if (!rdp->rcu_iw_pending && rdp->rcu_iw_gp_seq != rnp->gp_seq &&
> (rnp->ffmask & rdp->grpmask)) {
> - rdp->rcu_iw_pending = true;
> rdp->rcu_iw_gp_seq = rnp->gp_seq;
> - irq_work_queue_on(&rdp->rcu_iw, rdp->cpu);
> + if (likely(rdp->cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> + rdp->rcu_iw_pending = true;
> + irq_work_queue_remote(rdp->cpu, &rdp->rcu_iw);
> + }
> }
> -#endif
> + raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp);
> }
>
> return 0;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-28 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-28 11:07 [PATCH v3 0/6] smp: irq_work / smp_call_function rework Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 11:07 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] irq_work: Cleanup Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 13:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-28 11:07 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] smp: Cleanup smp_call_function*() Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 13:25 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-28 11:07 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] irq_work: Optimize irq_work_single() Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 12:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-28 11:07 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] irq_work: Unconditionally build on SMP Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 13:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-28 14:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 11:07 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] irq_work: Provide irq_work_queue_remote() Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 13:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-28 14:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 14:56 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-28 11:07 ` [RFC][PATCH v3 6/6] rcu/tree: Use irq_work_queue_remote() Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 14:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 20:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 20:15 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-10-29 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-29 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-29 16:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-29 9:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-29 16:06 ` 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=20201028201554.GE3249@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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