public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: don't ignore preempt_disable() in the idle loop
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:57:46 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B96EE8A.5050003@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1268139138.10871.1868.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:13 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Current, synchronize_sched() ignores preempt-disable()
>> sequences in the idle loop. It makes synchronize_sched()
>> is not so pure, and it hurts tracing.
>>
>> Paul have a proposal before:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/5/140
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/6/496
>> But old fix needs to hack into all architectures' idle loops.
>>
>> This is another try, it uses the fact that idle loops
>> are executing with preept_count()=1.
>> But I didn't look deep into all idle loops.
> 
> Lai,
> 
> Does this (with your patch) fix the bug you were seeing with the ring
> buffer code?
> 

No, this can not fix the bug we found with the ring buffer code.
I think the bug is not come from this issue or from RCU.

Lai

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
>> index 3ec8160..0761723 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
>> @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_sched_data);
>>  struct rcu_state rcu_bh_state = RCU_STATE_INITIALIZER(rcu_bh_state);
>>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_data);
>>  
>> +#ifndef IDLE_CORE_LOOP_PREEMPT_COUNT
>> +#define IDLE_CORE_LOOP_PREEMPT_COUNT (1)
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Return true if an RCU grace period is in progress.  The ACCESS_ONCE()s
>>   * permit this function to be invoked without holding the root rcu_node
>> @@ -1114,6 +1118,26 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
>>  		raise_softirq(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline int rcu_idle_qs(int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if (!rcu_scheduler_active)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if (in_softirq())
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if (hardirq_count() > (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if ((preempt_count() & PREEMPT_MASK) > IDLE_CORE_LOOP_PREEMPT_COUNT)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Check to see if this CPU is in a non-context-switch quiescent state
>>   * (user mode or idle loop for rcu, non-softirq execution for rcu_bh).
>> @@ -1127,9 +1151,7 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
>>  {
>>  	if (!rcu_pending(cpu))
>>  		return; /* if nothing for RCU to do. */
>> -	if (user ||
>> -	    (idle_cpu(cpu) && rcu_scheduler_active &&
>> -	     !in_softirq() && hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))) {
>> +	if (user || rcu_idle_qs(cpu)) {
>>  
>>  		/*
>>  		 * Get here if this CPU took its interrupt from user
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-10  0:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-09 11:13 [RFC PATCH] rcu: don't ignore preempt_disable() in the idle loop Lai Jiangshan
2010-03-09 12:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-03-10  0:57   ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2010-03-10 13:51     ` Steven Rostedt
2010-03-10  0:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-10  1:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-10  2:13   ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-03-10  2:28     ` 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=4B96EE8A.5050003@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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