lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next-20110923: warning kernel/rcutree.c:1833
    On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:20:55AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 06:26:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:10:33AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > > 2011/9/26 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>:
    > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > > >> This is required for RCU_FAST_NO_HZ, which checks to see whether the
    > > > >> current CPU can accelerate the current grace period so as to enter
    > > > >> dyntick-idle mode sooner than it would otherwise.  This takes effect
    > > > >> in the situation where rcu_needs_cpu() sees that there are callbacks.
    > > > >> It then notes a quiescent state (which is illegal in an RCU read-side
    > > > >> critical section), calls force_quiescent_state(), and so on.  For this
    > > > >> to work, the current CPU must be in an RCU read-side critical section.
    > > > >
    > > > > You mean it must *not* be in an RCU read-side critical section (ie: in a
    > > > > quiescent state)?
    > > > >
    > > > > That assumption at least fails anytime in idle for the RCU
    > > > > sched flavour given that preemption is disabled in the idle loop.
    > > > >
    > > > >> If this cannot be made to work, another option is to call a new RCU
    > > > >> function in the case where rcu_needs_cpu() returned false, but after
    > > > >> the RCU read-side critical section has exited.
    > > > >
    > > > > You mean when rcu_needs_cpu() returns true (when we have callbacks
    > > > > enqueued)?
    > > > >
    > > > >> This new RCU function
    > > > >> could then attempt to rearrange RCU so as to allow the CPU to enter
    > > > >> dyntick-idle mode more quickly.  It is more important for this to
    > > > >> happen when the CPU is going idle than when it is executing a user
    > > > >> process.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> So, is this doable?
    > > > >
    > > > > At least not when we have RCU sched callbacks enqueued, given preemption
    > > > > is disabled. But that sounds plausible in order to accelerate the switch
    > > > > to dyntick-idle mode when we only have rcu and/or rcu bh callbacks.
    > > >
    > > > But the RCU sched case could be dealt with if we embrace every use of
    > > > it with rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched(), or some light
    > > > version that just increases a local counter that rcu_needs_cpu() could check.
    > > >
    > > > It's an easy thing to add: we can ensure preempt is disabled when we call it
    > > > and we can force rcu_dereference_sched() to depend on it.
    > >
    > > Or just check to see if this is the first level of interrupt from the
    > > idle task after the scheduler is up.
    >
    > I believe it's always the case. tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() is only called
    > from the first level of interrupt in irq_exit().

    OK, good, let me see if I really understand this...

    Case 1: The interrupt interrupted non-dyntick-idle code. In this case,
    rcu_needs_cpu() can look at the dyntick-idle state and determine
    that it might not be in a quiescent state.

    Case 2: The interrupt interrupted dyntick-idle code. In this case,
    the interrupted code had better not be in an RCU read-side
    critical section, and rcu_needs_cpu() should be able to
    detect this as well.

    Case 3: The interrupt interrupted the process of transitioning to
    or from dyntick-idle mode. This should be prohibited by
    the local_irq_save() calls, right?

    > There is always some race window, as it's based on preempt offset: between
    > the sub_preempt_count and the softirqs begin and between softirqs end and the end
    > of the interrupt. But an "idle_cpu() || in_interrupt()" check in rcu_read_lock_sched_held()
    > should catch those offenders.

    But all of this stuff looks to me to be called from the context
    of the idle task, so that idle_cpu() will always return "true"...

    Thanx, Paul
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-27 00:53    [W:0.028 / U:62.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site