From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] workqueue: add quiescent state between work items
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 05:19:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141008121938.GJ4880@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141008115428.GA1858@nanopsycho.orion>
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:54:28PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:24:11AM CEST, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:45:28PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:43:29 -0700
> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:29:42AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> [ ... snip ... ]
> >> > >
> >> > > Paul, Tehun, how do you propose to fix this on older kernels which do
> >> > > not have rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch? I'm particullary interested
> >> > > in 3.10.
> >> >
> >> > Hello, Jiri,
> >> >
> >> > Older kernels can instead use rcu_note_context_switch().
> >>
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> Does 4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for
> >> RCU") affect a backport to 3.10?
> >>
> >> I noticed that rcu_note_context_switch added a call to
> >> rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle in that change, which is only present in
> >> v3.16+.
> >>
> >> Would rcu_note_context_switch be effective by itself on a 3.10 kernel?
> >
> >Should be fine. There is more overhead than current mainline, but that
> >should not be in the noise compared to executing a work-queue item.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>
> I cooked up following patch. Please tell me if it is fine or not. I can
> also send it oficially so it can be included into stable trees:
Looks good!
Thanx, Paul
> Subject: workqueue: Add quiescent state between work items
>
> Similar to the stop_machine deadlock scenario on !PREEMPT kernels
> addressed in b22ce2785d97 "workqueue: cond_resched() after processing
> each work item", kworker threads requeueing back-to-back with zero jiffy
> delay can stall RCU. The cond_resched call introduced in that fix will
> yield only iff there are other higher priority tasks to run, so force a
> quiescent RCU state between work items.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index e9719c7..14a7163 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -2196,8 +2196,10 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock)
> * kernels, where a requeueing work item waiting for something to
> * happen could deadlock with stop_machine as such work item could
> * indefinitely requeue itself while all other CPUs are trapped in
> - * stop_machine.
> + * stop_machine. At the same time, report a quiescent RCU state so
> + * the same condition doesn't freeze RCU.
> */
> + rcu_note_context_switch(raw_smp_processor_id());
> cond_resched();
>
> spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
> --
> 1.9.3
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-08 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1412529862-17954-1-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@stratus.com>
2014-10-05 17:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] workqueue: add quiescent state between work items Joe Lawrence
2014-10-05 19:21 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-05 19:47 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 4:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-07 7:29 ` Jiri Pirko
2014-10-07 13:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-07 17:45 ` Joe Lawrence
2014-10-08 3:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-08 11:54 ` Jiri Pirko
2014-10-08 12:19 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
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=20141008121938.GJ4880@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=joe.lawrence@stratus.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).