On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:48:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:44:41AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 06:21:32PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:16:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > Is it because we have dynticks CPUs staying too long in the kernel
> > > > > without
> > > > > taking any quiescent states? Are we perhaps missing some
> > > > > rcu_user_enter() or
> > > > > things?
> > > >
> > > > Sort of the former, but combined with the fact that in-kernel CPUs still
> > > > need scheduling-clock interrupts for RCU to make progress. I could
> > > > move this to RCU's context-switch hook, but that could be very bad for
> > > > workloads that do lots of context switching.
> > >
> > > Or I can restart the tick if the CPU stays in the kernel for too long
> > > without
> > > a tick. I think that's what we were doing before but we removed that
> > > because
> > > we never implemented it correctly (we sent scheduler IPI that did
> > > nothing...)
> >
> > I wonder if timer slack would make sense here: when you have at least
> > one RCU callback pending, set a timer with a huge amount of timer slack,
> > and cancel it if you end up handling the callback via a trip through the
> > scheduler.
>
> But in this case, we need the tick even if the current CPU has no callbacks
> because it might be in an RCU read-side critical section.
Don't we handle that case via the slowpath of rcu_read_unlock, and a
flag set via IPI? ("Oh, that CPU has taken too long to note a quiescent
state; send it an IPI to set the special flag that makes unlock do the
work.")
- Josh Triplett
--
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/
