Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 May 2012 18:01:21 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/41] nohz/cpuset: Don't turn off the tick if rcu needs it |
| |
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:27:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 06:06:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 08:15:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 03:52:09PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS_NO_HZ > > > > > > +static bool can_stop_adaptive_tick(void) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + if (!sched_can_stop_tick()) > > > > > > + return false; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /* Is there a grace period to complete ? */ > > > > > > + if (rcu_pending(smp_processor_id())) > > > > > > > > > > You lost me on this one. Why can't this be rcu_needs_cpu()? > > > > > > > > We already have an rcu_needs_cpu() check in tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() > > > > that prevents the tick to shut down if the CPU has local callbacks to handle. > > > > > > > > The rcu_pending() check is there in case some other CPU is waiting for the > > > > current one to help completing a grace period, by reporting a quiescent state > > > > for example. This happens because we may stop the tick in the kernel, not only > > > > userspace. And if we are in the kernel, we still need to be part of the global > > > > state machine. > > > > > > Ah! But RCU will notice that the CPU is in dyntick-idle mode, and will > > > therefore take any needed quiescent-state action on that CPU's behalf. > > > So there should be no need to call rcu_pending() anywhere outside of the > > > RCU core code. > > > > No. If the tick is stopped and we are in the kernel, we may be using RCU > > anytime, so we need to be part of the RCU core. > > OK, so the only problem is if we spend a long time CPU-bound in the kernel, > where "long" is milliseconds or tens of milliseconds. In that case, the > RCU core will notice that the CPU has not responded but is not idle, for > example, in rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(). It can take action at this point > to get the offending CPU to pay attention to RCU. > > Does this make sense, or am I still missing something?
Yeah that's exactly the purpose of the rcu_pending() check before shutting down the tick and the IPI to wake it up.
| |