[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 05:52:56PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * If the specified CPU is offline, tell the caller that it is in
>> + * a quiescent state. Otherwise, whack it with a reschedule IPI.
>> + * Grace periods can end up waiting on an offline CPU when that
>> + * CPU is in the process of coming online -- it will be added to the
>> + * rcu_node bitmasks before it actually makes it online. Because this
>> + * race is quite rare, we check for it after detecting that the grace
>> + * period has been delayed rather than checking each and every CPU
>> + * each and every time we start a new grace period.
>> + */
> What about using CPU_DYING and CPU_STARTING?
> Then this race wouldn't exist anymore.

Because I don't want to tie RCU too tightly to the details of the
online/offline implementation. It is too easy for someone to make a
"simple" change and break things, especially given that the online/offline
code still seems to be adjusting a bit.

So I might well use CPU_DYING and CPU_STARTING, but I would still keep
the check offlined CPUs in the force_quiescent_state() processing.

>> +static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
>> +{
>> + [snip]
>> + case RCU_FORCE_QS:
>> +
>> + /* Check dyntick-idle state, send IPI to laggarts. */
>> + if (rcu_process_dyntick(rsp,
>> dyntick_recall_completed(rsp),
>> + rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs))
>> + goto unlock_ret;
>> +
>> + /* Leave state in case more forcing is required. */
>> +
>> + break;
> Hmm - your code must loop multiple times over the cpus.
> I've use a different approach: More forcing is only required for a nohz cpu
> when it was hit within a long-running interrupt.
> Thus I've added a '->kick_poller' flag, rcu_irq_exit() reports back when
> the long-running interrupt completes. Never more than one loop over the
> outstanding cpus is required.

Do you send a reschedule IPI to CPUs that are not in dyntick idle mode,
but who have failed to pass through a quiescent state?

In my case, more forcing is required only for a nohz CPU in a long-running
interrupt (as with your approach), for sending the aforementioned IPI,
and for checking for offlined CPUs as noted above.

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-13 00:49    [W:0.131 / U:3.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site