Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:50:42 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/13] stop_machine: Remove lglock |
| |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:26:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > I really think you're making that expedited nonsense far too accessible. > > > > This has nothing to do with accessibility and everything to do with > > robustness. And with me not becoming the triage center for too many > > non-RCU bugs. > > But by making it so you're rewarding abuse instead of flagging it :-(
As discussed in the thread with Ingo, I will do both.
Alternatively, RCU -is- abuse. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise simply lacks proper respect for and adoration of traditional synchronization mechanisms. ;-)
> > > > And we still need to be able to drop back to synchronize_sched() > > > > (AKA wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_sched) in this case) in case we have both a > > > > creative user and a long-running RCU-sched read-side critical section. > > > > > > No, a long-running RCU-sched read-side is a bug and we should fix that, > > > its called a preemption-latency, we don't like those. > > > > Yes, we should fix them. No, they absolutely must not result in a > > meltdown of some unrelated portion of the kernel (like RCU), particularly > > if this situation occurs on some system running a production workload > > that doesn't happen to care about preemption latency. > > I still don't see a problem here though; the stop_one_cpu() invocation > for the CPU that's suffering its preemption latency will take longer, > but so what? > > How does polling and dropping back to sync_rcu() generate better > behaviour than simply waiting for the completion?
Because if there is too much delay, synchronize_rcu() is no slower than is synchronize_rcu_expedited(), plus synchronize_rcu() is much more efficient.
That said, it appears that I have not given any particular thought to the polling code since about 2008 or so, and it could use quite an upgrade...
> > > > > + stop_one_cpu(cpu, synchronize_sched_expedited_cpu_stop, NULL); > > > > > > > > My thought was to use smp_call_function_single(), and to have the function > > > > called recheck dyntick-idle state, avoiding doing a set_tsk_need_resched() > > > > if so. > > > > > > set_tsk_need_resched() is buggy and should not be used. > > > > OK, what API is used for this purpose? > > As per exception you (rcu) already have access to resched_cpu(), use > that -- if it doesn't do what you need it to, we'll fix it, you're the > only consumer of it.
Color me slow and stupid!
And it looks like resched_cpu() does just fine on the local CPU, so it should be just fine as is. Thank you for the reminder.
Thanx, Paul
| |