Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:56:42 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/7] rcu: Avoid IPIing idle CPUs from synchronize_sched_expedited() |
| |
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:22:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > Currently, synchronize_sched_expedited() sends IPIs to all online CPUs, > > even those that are idle or executing in nohz_full= userspace. Because > > idle CPUs and nohz_full= userspace CPUs are in extended quiescent states, > > there is no need to IPI them in the first place. This commit therefore > > avoids IPIing CPUs that are already in extended quiescent states. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > index 7f73c5edf8cf..9e3c20f117cd 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > @@ -2950,6 +2950,9 @@ static int synchronize_sched_expedited_cpu_stop(void *data) > > */ > > void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) > > { > > + cpumask_var_t cm; > > + bool cma = false; > > + int cpu; > > long firstsnap, s, snap; > > int trycount = 0; > > struct rcu_state *rsp = &rcu_sched_state; > > @@ -2984,11 +2987,26 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void) > > } > > WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(raw_smp_processor_id())); > > > > + /* Offline CPUs, idle CPUs, and any CPU we run on are quiescent. */ > > + cma = zalloc_cpumask_var(&cm, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (cma) { > > + cpumask_copy(cm, cpu_online_mask); > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), cm); > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, cm) { > > + struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks, cpu); > > + > > + if (!(atomic_add_return(0, &rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1)) > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cm); > > + } > > + if (cpumask_weight(cm) == 0) > > + goto all_cpus_idle; > > + } > > Is there a reason not to use on_each_cpu_cond()?
Because I don't know how to write a function that returns a blooean value? (Sorry, couldn't resist, and yes I do know that "boolean" was meant.) If we had lambdas, I might be interested in making that transformation, but pulling the condition into a separate function doesn't seem like a win to me.
But even with lambdas, it looks to me like on_each_cpu_cond() just does an IPI, and I need the selected CPUs to do a context switch. Yes, I could make the IPI handler function call induce a context switch, but then I would have to add more mechanism to wait for the induced context switches to actually happen.
That said, I am considering switching synchronize_sched_expedited() from try_stop_cpus() to resched_cpu() if I need to parallelize synchronize_sched_expedited().
Thanx, Paul
| |