Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:50:20 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/11 v2] nohz: Allow rcu extended quiescent state handling seperately from tick stop |
| |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:03:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:57:52PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 04:01:00PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > It is assumed that rcu won't be used once we switch to tickless > > > mode and until we restart the tick. However this is not always > > > true, as in x86-64 where we dereference the idle notifiers after > > > the tick is stopped. > > > > > > To prepare for fixing this, add two new APIs: > > > tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu() and tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu(). > > > > > > If no use of RCU is made in the idle loop between > > > tick_nohz_enter_idle() and tick_nohz_exit_idle() calls, the arch > > > must instead call the new *_norcu() version such that the arch doesn't > > > need to call rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit(). > > > > > > Otherwise the arch must call tick_nohz_enter_idle() and > > > tick_nohz_exit_idle() and also call explicitly: > > > > > > - rcu_idle_enter() after its last use of RCU before the CPU is put > > > to sleep. > > > - rcu_idle_exit() before the first use of RCU after the CPU is woken > > > up. > > > > Thank you, Frederic! I have queued this to replace the earlier > > version. The set is available on branch rcu/dyntick of > > > > https://github.com/paulmckrcu/linux > > Which reminds me... About the ultimate objective, getting tick-free > operation. (Or, for the guys who want to eliminate the tick entirely, > shutting up the hrtimer stuff that they want to replace it with.) > > I believe that you will then need to have two levels of not-in-dynticks > for processes, one for idle vs. not and another for when a process > switches from user-space to kernel execution. Correct, or am I > confused? > > The reason I ask is that commit e11f5981 currently only allows one > level of not-in-dynticks for processes. It is easy to add another > level, but thought I should check beforehand.
Hmm, yeah looking at that patch, it's going to be hard to have a nesting that looks like:
rcu_irq_enter(); rcu_user_enter(); rcu_irq_exit(); <-- with effective extended quiescent state starting there
I also need to be able to call rcu_user_enter() from non-irq path.
I don't truly understand the problem of the usermode helpers that mess up the dynticks counts. May be we can somewhow fix it differently from the offending callsite?
| |