lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: tty^Wrcu/perf lockdep trace.
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 06:50:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:03:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The problem exists, but NOCB made it much more probable. With non-NOCB
> > kernels, an irq-disabled call_rcu() invocation does a wake_up() only if
> > there are more than 10,000 callbacks stacked up on the CPU. With a NOCB
> > kernel, the wake_up() happens on the first callback.
>
> Oh I see.. so I was hoping this was some NOCB crackbrained damage we
> could still 'fix'.
>
> And that wakeup is because we moved grace-period advancing into
> kthreads, right?

Yep, in earlier kernels we would instead be doing raise_softirq().
Which would instead wake up ksoftirqd, if I am reading the code
correctly -- spin_lock_irq() does not affect preempt_count.

> > I am not too happy about the complexity of deferring, but maybe it is
> > the right approach, at least assuming perf isn't going to whack me
> > with a timer lock. ;-)
>
> I'm not too thrilled about trying to move the call_rcu() usage either.

Understood!

> > Any other approaches that I am missing?
>
> Probably; so the regular no-NOCB would be easy to work around by
> providing me a call_rcu variant that never does the wakeup.

Well, if we can safely, sanely, and reliably defer the wakeup, there is
no reason not to make plain old call_rcu() do what you need. If there
is no such way to defer the wakeup, then I don't see how to make that
variant.

> NOCB might be a little more difficult; depending on the reason why it
> needs to do this wakeup on every single invocation; that seems
> particularly expensive.

Not on every single invocation, just on those invocations where the list
is initially empty. So the first call_rcu() on a CPU whose rcuo kthread
is sleeping will do a wakeup, but subsequent call_rcu()s will just queue,
at least until rcuo goes to sleep again. Which takes awhile, since it
has to wait for a grace period before invoking that first RCU callback.

> Man, RCU was so much easier when all it was was a strict per-cpu state
> with timer-interrupt driven state machine; non of all this nonsense.

Tell me about it! This bit about avoiding scheduling-clock interrupts
for all sorts of reasons has most definitely added to my collection of
gray hairs. ;-)

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-04 19:21    [W:0.097 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site