From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@elte.hu, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org,
dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com,
mtosatti@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: The Bloatwatch Edition, v7
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:26:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AE6A0BD.1080102@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1255488586.7113.3094.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> But isn't the tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick have several exits?
>
> void tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(int inidle)
> {
> [..]
>
> if (!inidle && !ts->inidle)
> goto end;
>
> ts->inidle = 1;
>
> [..]
>
> if (!ts->tick_stopped) {
> [..]
> ts->tick_stopped = 1;
> ts->idle_jiffies = last_jiffies;
> rcu_enter_nohz();
> }
> [..]
>
>
> So I'm not sure calling tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick twice equals calling
> rcu_enter_nohz twice.
>
Hi, tglx, steven,
(Thank to tglx for helping me at the Japan Linux Symposium)
I found something weird about NO_HZ, maybe I misunderstood the codes.
see this flow:
cpu idle
enter nohz
cpu halt
---->interrupt happens
irq_enter()
we don't reprogram the clock device #1
irq_exit()
tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(inidle = 0)
something disallow this cpu reenter nohz #2
we don't reprogram the clock device #3
<----interrupt return
cpu halt again and wait interrupt for a long time than expected #4
exit nohz
#1 tick_nohz_kick_tick() is disabled in the current mainline kernel,
so we don't calls tick_nohz_restart(ts, now) when irq_enter()
static void tick_nohz_kick_tick(int cpu)
{
#if 0 <------------- here
/* Switch back to 2.6.27 behaviour */
struct tick_sched *ts = &per_cpu(tick_cpu_sched, cpu);
ktime_t delta, now;
if (!ts->tick_stopped)
return;
/*
* Do not touch the tick device, when the next expiry is either
* already reached or less/equal than the tick period.
*/
now = ktime_get();
delta = ktime_sub(hrtimer_get_expires(&ts->sched_timer), now);
if (delta.tv64 <= tick_period.tv64)
return;
tick_nohz_restart(ts, now); <----------- here
#endif
}
#2 When rcu_needs_cpu() or printk_needs_cpu()
returns true then tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() will just return.
#3 And we don't reprogram the clock device when #2 happens
#4 So we may be in nohz for a long time than expected, but actually
we have some work to do. (rcu, printk... etc)
So I think, we need to reprogram the clock device and restart the tick
when #2 happens, or there is something that I have misunderstood.
Thanks, Lai
> -- Steve
>
>>> So I do believe that rcu_enter_nohz() and rcu_exit_nohz() are in fact
>>> invoked in pairs. One strange thing about this is that the idle loop
>>> first invokes rcu_enter_nohz(), then invokes rcu_exit_nohz(), while
>>> an interrupt handler first invokes rcu_irq_enter() and then invokes
>>> rcu_irq_exit(). So the idle loop enters dyntick-idle mode and then
>>> leaves it, while an interrupt handler might leave dyntick-idle mode and
>>> then re-enter it.
>>>
>>> Or am I still missing something here?
>>>
>>> Thanx, Paul
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-27 7:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-09 22:49 [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/3] Tiny RCU and expedited SRCU Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-09 22:50 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: The Bloatwatch Edition, v7 Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-12 9:29 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-10-12 16:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-12 17:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-13 6:05 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-10-13 7:44 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-10-13 17:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-14 0:37 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-10-14 1:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-14 2:05 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-10-14 2:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-27 7:26 ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2009-10-27 19:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-14 2:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-09 22:50 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 2/3] rcu: Add synchronize_srcu_expedited() Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-09 22:50 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 3/3] rcu: add synchronize_srcu_expedited() to the rcutorture test suite Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-10 3:47 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/3] Tiny RCU and expedited SRCU Josh Triplett
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=4AE6A0BD.1080102@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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