On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:27:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:09:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > BTW, I'm really itching to give it a try to make the scheduler more
> > > > > deadlock
> > > > > resilient (that is, if the scheduler wake up path detects a deadlock,
> > > > > then it
> > > > > defers the wake up using timers, or irq_work on its own instead of
> > > > > passing
> > > > > the burden of doing so to the callers). Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > I have used similar approaches within RCU, but on the other hand the
> > > > scheduler often has tighter latency constraints than RCU does. So I
> > > > think that is a better question for the scheduler maintainers than it
> > > > is for me. ;-)
> > >
> > > Ok, it definitely keeps coming up in my radar first with the
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special() stuff, and now the nocb ;-). Perhaps it could
> > > also
> > > be good for a conference discussion!
> >
> > Again, please understand that RCU has way looser latency constraints
> > than the scheduler does. Adding half a jiffy to wakeup latency might
> > not go over well, especially in the real-time application area.
>
> Yeah, agreed that the "deadlock detection" code should be pretty light weight
> if/when it is written.
In addition, to even stand a chance, you would need to use hrtimers.
The half-jiffy (at a minimum) delay from any other deferral mechanism
that I know of would be the kiss of death, especially from the viewpoint
of the real-time guys.
> > But what did the scheduler maintainers say about this idea?
>
> Last I remember when it came up during the rcu_read_unlock_special() deadlock
> discussions, there's no way to know for infra like RCU to know that it was
> invoked from the scheduler.
>
> The idea I am bringing up now (about the scheduler itself detecting a
> recursion) was never brought up (not yet) with the sched maintainers (at
> least not by me).
It might be good to bounce if off of them sooner rather than later.
Thanx, Paul
