Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:10:08 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ksoftirqd: Enable IRQs and call cond_resched() before poking RCU |
| |
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:40:39AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 12:30 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 02:21:51PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c > > > > index 501baa9..9e787d8 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/softirq.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c > > > > @@ -656,9 +656,13 @@ static void run_ksoftirqd(unsigned int cpu) > > > > * in the task stack here. > > > > */ > > > > __do_softirq(); > > > > - rcu_note_context_switch(cpu); > > > > local_irq_enable(); > > > > cond_resched(); > > > > + > > > > + preempt_disable(); > > > > + rcu_note_context_switch(cpu); > > > > + preempt_enable(); > > > > + > > > > > > The whole rcu_note_context_switch() in run_ksoftirqd() is silly. > > > > > > cond_resched() > > > __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE); > > > > > > __schedule(); > > > preempt_disable(); > > > rcu_note_context_switch(); > > > .... > > > > > > __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE); > > > > I agree that if should_resched() returns true as assumed above, then there > > is no point to invoking rcu_note_context_switch(). However, the case that > > this code applies to is when should_resched() returns false, but RCU is > > waiting for a quiescent state from the current CPU. In that case, > > cond_resched() won't do anything for RCU, and we do need the > > rcu_note_context_switch(). > > I've been curious about this for ages, so now is a great time to bite > the bullet and ask TheMan. A context switch is not far away, why do we > need that quiescent state badly enough to tell what looks like a little > white lie to get it immediately? > > (I commented it out in an -rt kernel I was testing yesterday, beat it > enthusiastically for a while, and box didn't _seem_ to notice that it > was missing anything)
Yeah, you do have to have a fairly violent network-based DoS attack to see the difference. Robert Olsson was the first to make this happen back in the day.
Thanx, Paul
| |