Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:01:18 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 2/5] smpboot: Provide infrastructure for percpu hotplug threads |
| |
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 04:12:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 01:20:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > I gave it a quick shot, but I was not able to reproduce the hang yet. > > > > > > > > Really? I have a strictly Western-Hemisphere bug? ;-) > > > > > > I guess I need to fire up rcu torture to make it surface. > > > > > > > > But looking at the thread function made me look into rcu_yield() and I > > > > > really wonder what kind of drug induced that particular piece of > > > > > horror. > > > > > > > > When you are working on something like RCU priority boosting, no other > > > > drug is in any way necessary. ;-) > > > > > > And how do we protect minors from that ? > > > > > > > > I can't figure out why this yield business is necessary at all. The > > > > > commit logs are as helpful as the missing code comments :) > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that it's some starvation issue. But if we need it, then > > > > > can't we replace it with something sane like the (untested) patch > > > > > below? > > > > > > > > Yep, starvation. I will take a look at your approach after I wake > > > > up a bit more. > > > > > > Btw, if that simpler yield approach is working and I can't see why it > > > shouldn't then you can get rid of the node task as well. The only > > > purpose of it is to push up the priority of yielding tasks, right? > > > > Ah, missed that it calls rcu_initiate_boost() as well.... > > And looking further, I really don't understand why it's doing > that. That node thread is only woken by these weird yield timers.
If your patch works out, it indeed might be possible to get rid of ->node_kthread_task. The ->boost_kthread_task needs to stay, however.
Thanx, Paul
| |