Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:26:07 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/11 v2] nohz: Allow rcu extended quiescent state handling seperately from tick stop |
| |
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:28:08PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:00:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 02:08:36PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 03:51:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 02:50:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > OK, so the idea here is that there has been two runnable processes on > > > > the current CPU, but during the irq handler one of them moves or some > > > > such? > > > > > > No it happens when we have an irq in userspace and we stop the tick > > > from that irq. Noticing we are in userspace, we want to be in extended > > > quiescent state when we resume from the interrupt to userspace. > > > > Ah, OK! > > > > > > If so, how about a rcu_user_enter_fromirq() that sets the counter > > > > to 1 so that the rcu_irq_exit() cleans up properly? If need be, I could > > > > of course provide an argument to allow you to specify the count offset. > > > > > > Yeah I think that should work. > > > > Very good. I will start off with no argument, easy enough to add it > > later if needed. > > Yeah, but for now, this is out of tree code. The functions seem quite trivial > to write so I guess I can sort it out in my tree when I'll rebase on 3.2 > (if the current queue goes to the next merge window)
I will be pushing rcu/next to get -next exposure later this week (once I reach a geography that permits github access), and if all goes well...
> > > > > I also need to be able to call rcu_user_enter() from non-irq path. > > > > > > > > Then rcu_user_enter_fromirq() would be for the irq path and > > > > rcu_user_enter() from the non-irq path. > > > > > > > > Would that work for you? > > > > > > Yep! > > > > Very good, I will take a whack at it. BTW, testing is going quite > > well thus far with your current patches combined with my paranoid > > idle-count approach. One test in particular that previously failed > > reliably within minutes just successfully completed a ten-hour run. > > So things are looking up! (Famous last words...) > > Great, I cross my fingers! :)
Good results for that one. Here's hoping for continued test passing.
> > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > I tried a few approaches along these lines, but there were way too > > > > many opportunities for interruption and preemption along the way. > > > > The problem is that unless the fixup happens under a no-preempt > > > > region of code that includes the rcu_irq_enter() or rcu_irq_exit() > > > > call (as the case may be), then you end up messing up the idle-depth > > > > count of two CPUs rather than just one. :-( > > > > > > > > But maybe I am missing something -- suggestions more than welcome! > > > > > > It's rather me missing everything :) > > > It happens when we call call_usermodehelper()? If so how? We have a > > > call to rcu_irq_enter() that lacks an rcu_irq_exit() ? > > > > On powerpc, it executes the "sc" ("system call") instruction from > > kernel mode, which results in an exception. But from what I can see, > > there is no corresponding return from exception, so my not-so-paranoid > > counting scheme would lose count. That said, please keep in mind that > > I in no way fully understand that code. It is also far from clear to > > me why my earlier dyntick-idle code worked in this situation -- perhaps > > the value of preempt_count() gets fixed up somehow -- I haven't really > > studied all the assembly language involved in detail, so there is lots > > of opportunity for such a fixup somewhere. > > > > You asked! ;-) > > Haha! ;)
;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |