lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 2/7] nohz_full: Add rcu_dyntick data for scalable detection of all-idle state
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 06:30:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> This commit adds fields to the rcu_dyntick structure that are used to
> detect idle CPUs. These new fields differ from the existing ones in
> that the existing ones consider a CPU executing in user mode to be idle,
> where the new ones consider CPUs executing in user mode to be busy.
> The handling of these new fields is otherwise quite similar to that for
> the exiting fields. This commit also adds the initialization required
> for these fields.
>
> So, why is usermode execution treated differently, with RCU considering
> it a quiescent state equivalent to idle, while in contrast the new
> full-system idle state detection considers usermode execution to be
> non-idle?
>
> It turns out that although one of RCU's quiescent states is usermode
> execution, it is not a full-system idle state. This is because the
> purpose of the full-system idle state is not RCU, but rather determining
> when accurate timekeeping can safely be disabled. Whenever accurate
> timekeeping is required in a CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL kernel, at least one
> CPU must keep the scheduling-clock tick going. If even one CPU is
> executing in user mode, accurate timekeeping is requires, particularly for
> architectures where gettimeofday() and friends do not enter the kernel.
> Only when all CPUs are really and truly idle can accurate timekeeping be
> disabled, allowing all CPUs to turn off the scheduling clock interrupt,
> thus greatly improving energy efficiency.
>
> This naturally raises the question "Why is this code in RCU rather than in
> timekeeping?", and the answer is that RCU has the data and infrastructure
> to efficiently make this determination.

but but but but... why doesn't the regular nohz code qualify? I'd think
that too would be tracking pretty much the same things, no?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-10 23:31    [W:0.162 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site