On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 07:09:42AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 18:59 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So I have been tightening up rcutorture a bit over the past year.
> > The other day, I came across what looked like a great opportunity for
> > further tightening, namely the schedule() in rcu_torture_reader().
> > Why not turn this into a cond_resched(), speeding up the readers a bit
> > and placing more stress on RCU?
> >
> > And boy does it increase stress!
> >
> > Unfortunately, this increased stress sometimes shows up in the form of
> > lots of RCU CPU stall warnings. These can appear when an instance of
> > rcu_torture_reader() gets a CPU to itself, in which case it won't ever
> > enter the scheduler, and RCU will never see a quiescent state from that
> > CPU, which means the grace period never ends.
> >
> > So I am taking a more measured approach to cond_resched() in
> > rcu_torture_reader() for the moment.
> >
> > But longer term, should cond_resched() imply a set of RCU
> > quiescent states? One way to do this would be to add calls to
> > rcu_note_context_switch() in each of the various cond_resched() functions.
> > Easy change, but of course adds some overhead. On the other hand,
> > there might be more than a few of the 500+ calls to cond_resched() that
> > expect that RCU CPU stalls will be prevented (to say nothing of
> > might_sleep() and cond_resched_lock()).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > (Untested patch below, FWIW.)
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index b46131ef6aab..994d2b0fd0b2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4075,6 +4075,9 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> > __cond_resched();
> > return 1;
> > }
> > + preempt_disable();
> > + rcu_note_context_switch(smp_processor_id());
> > + preempt_enable();
> > return 0;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(_cond_resched);
>
> Hm. Since you only care about the case where your task is solo, how
> about do racy checks, 100% accuracy isn't required is it? Seems you
> wouldn't want to unconditionally do that in tight loops.
And indeed, my current workaround unconditionally does schedule() one
out of 256 loops. I would do something similar here, perhaps based
on per-CPU counters, perhaps even with racy accesses to avoid always
doing preempt_disable()/preempt_enable().
Or did you have something else in mind?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
