lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [27]   [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 03:34:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:39:41AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 06:41:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney 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.
    > > >
    > > > Hmmm... Is it the case that rcu_needs_cpu() gets called from within an
    > > > RCU read-side critical section only when called from an interrupt that
    > > > interrupted an RCU read-side critical section (keeping in mind that the
    > > > idle loop is a quiescent state regardless of preemption)?
    > >
    > > Yeah. rcu_needs_cpu() can be called from an irq that either interrupted
    > > an rcu read side critical section or a bh one. But not a sched one if
    > > we forbid rcu sched uses in the preempt offset race windows I described
    > > in a previous mail.
    >
    > But can't I just assume that if rcu_needs_cpu is invoked within
    > a second-level interrupt handler that it might be in any type of
    > RCU read-side critical section? I could determine this by checking
    > RCU's dyntick-idle nesting state.

    No, rcu_needs_cpu() can only be called from the first level of interrupt.

    >
    > Such checks are not necessary if CONFIG_NO_HZ=n because in that
    > case rcu_needs_cpu() is just checking the callback queues, with
    > no assumptions about quiescent states.

    I believe it's not even called when CONFIG_NO_HZ=n

    >
    > > > If so, I should be able to do the appropriate checks within
    > > > rcu_needs_cpu().
    > >
    > > Right. But to know if you interrupted an rcu read side, don't you
    > > need a specific counter when !CONFIG_PREEMPT?
    >
    > Not if it is OK to assume that rcu_needs_cpu() can only be called from
    > within an RCU read-side interrupt handler if it is invoked from within a
    > second-level interrupt handler or if it interrupted some non-dyntick-idle
    > process-level code.
    >
    > So, is this assumption valid?

    Not sure I understand what you mean. But currently it can only be called from:

    - idle
    - first interrupt level, interrupting idle, but at a time where in_interrupt() returns 0

    With idle beeing or not in extended quiescent state.
    --
    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 14:09    [W:0.029 / U:119.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site