lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:07:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > But note that you do not strictly need this change. Just kill cpuhp_waitcount,
> > > > then we can change cpu_hotplug_begin/end to use xxx_enter/exit we discuss in
> > > > another thread, this should likely "join" all synchronize_sched's.
> > >
> > > That would still be 4k * sync_sched() == terribly long.
> >
> > No? the next xxx_enter() avoids sync_sched() if rcu callback is still
> > pending. Unless __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() is "too slow" of course.
>
> Hmm,. not in the version you posted; there xxx_enter() would only not do
> the sync_sched if there's a concurrent 'writer', in which case it will
> wait for it.

No, please see below.

> You only avoid the sync_sched in xxx_exit() and potentially join in the
> sync_sched() of a next xxx_begin().
>
> So with that scheme:
>
> for (i= ; i<4096; i++) {
> xxx_begin();
> xxx_exit();
> }
>
> Will get 4096 sync_sched() calls from the xxx_begin() and all but the
> last xxx_exit() will 'drop' the rcu callback.

No, the code above should call sync_sched() only once, no matter what
this code does between _enter and _exit. This was one of the points.

To clarify, of course I mean the "likely" case. Say, a long preemption
after _exit can lead to another sync_sched().

void xxx_enter(struct xxx_struct *xxx)
{
bool need_wait, need_sync;

spin_lock_irq(&xxx->xxx_lock);
need_wait = xxx->gp_count++;
need_sync = xxx->gp_state == GP_IDLE;
if (need_sync)
xxx->gp_state = GP_PENDING;
spin_unlock_irq(&xxx->xxx_lock);

BUG_ON(need_wait && need_sync);

if (need_sync) {
synchronize_sched();
xxx->gp_state = GP_PASSED;
wake_up_all(&xxx->gp_waitq);
} else if (need_wait) {
wait_event(&xxx->gp_waitq, xxx->gp_state == GP_PASSED);
} else {
BUG_ON(xxx->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
}
}

The 1st iteration:

xxx_enter() does synchronize_sched() and sets gp_state = GP_PASSED.

xxx_exit() starts the rcu callback, but gp_state is still PASSED.

all other iterations in the "likely" case:

xxx_enter() should likely come before the pending callback fires
and clears gp_state. In this case we only increment ->gp_count
(this "disables" the rcu callback) and do nothing more, gp_state
is still GP_PASSED.

xxx_exit() does another call_rcu_sched(), or does the
CP_PENDING -> CB_REPLAY change. The latter is the same as "start
another callback".

In short: unless a gp elapses between _exit() and _enter(), the next
_enter() does nothing and avoids synchronize_sched().

> And given the construct; I'm not entirely sure you can do away with the
> sync_sched() in between. While its clear to me you can merge the two
> into one; leaving it out entirely doesn't seem right.

Could you explain?

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-02 14:41    [W:0.198 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site