[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs requested
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:47:14PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 05:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The reason that David's latencies went from 100ms to one second is
> > because I made this code less aggressive about invoking resched_cpu().
> Ten seconds. We saw synchronize_sched() take ten seconds in 4.15. We
> wouldn't have been happy with one second, but ten seconds was
> considered particularly suboptimal.

Yes, ten seconds. Please accept my apologies for my early morning

Thanx, Paul

> > The reason I did that was to allow cond_resched_rcu_qs() to be used less
> > without performance regressions.  And just plain cond_resched() on
> > !PREEMPT is intended to handle the faster checks.  But KVM defeats
> > this by checking need_resched() before invoking cond_resched().
> It isn't just KVM. It's a relatively common construct to use
> need_resched(), then drop any local locks around cond_resched().
> A bare cond_resched() will call rcu_all_qs() unconditionally, and it is
> kind of inconsistent that need_resched() doesn't include the
> corresponding condition.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-09 16:28    [W:0.092 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site