Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2018 20:10:03 -0700 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: Tasks RCU vs Preempt RCU |
| |
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 08:38:32AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018 21:54:14 -0700 > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > > > > Yes, lets brain storm this if you like. One way I was thinking if we can > > manually check every CPU and see what state its in (usermode, kernel, idle > > etc) using an IPI mechanism. Once all CPUs have been seen to be in usermode, > > or idle atleast once - then we are done. You have probably already thought > > Nope, it has nothing to do with CPUs, it really has to do with tasks. > > CPU0 > ---- > task 1: (pinned to CPU 0) > call func_tracer_trampoline > [on trampoline] > [timer tick, schedule ] > > task 2: (higher priority, also pinned to CPU 0) > goes to user space > [ Runs for along time ] > > We cannot free the trampoline until task 2 releases the CPU and lets > task 1 run again to get off the CPU.
Right. I totally missed that. Ofcourse, its not sufficient to see if a CPU is in usermode. :(
> > about this so feel free to say why its not a good idea, but to me there are 3 > > places that a tasks quiescent state is recorded: during the timer tick, > > during task sleep and during rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch in > > cond_resched_rcu_qs. Of these, I feel only the cond_resched_rcu_qs case isn't > > trackable with IPI mechanism which may make the detection a bit slower, but > > tasks-RCU in mainline is slow right now anyway (~ 1 second delay if any task > > was held). > > > The way I was originally going to handle this was with a per task > counter, where it can be incremented at certain points via tracepoints. > > Thus my synchronize tasks, would have connected to a bunch of > tracepoints at known quiescent states that would increment the counter, > and then check each task until they all pass a certain point, or are in > a quiescent state (userspace or idle). But this would be doing much of > what RCU does today, and that is why we decided to hook with the RCU > infrastructure. > > I have to ask, what's your motivation for getting rid of RCU tasks?
Again, my motivation was just to see if we could use RCU-preempt. Linus was talking about unifying RCU variants/API better. I believe Paul is well on top of that task and I have been helping as I could with his recent series for that. Since RCU-preempt doesn't suit this job, looks like we have keep RCU tasks around. That said I sent you a patch to speed up RCU-tasks a bit, could you a take a look? Paul was asking for your input: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/20/263
Welcome back from your vacation, hope it was fun!
thanks,
- Joel
| |