On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 03:49:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 02:10:35PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 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.")
>
> There was once such logic on the force-quiescent-state path, and making
> that handle this new case was my first proposal. As Frederic pointed
> out, that change requires rcu_needs_cpu()'s cooperation, because otherwise
> the CPU will take the IPI, see that it still has but one runnable task,
> and then keep its scheduling-clock interrupt off.
Exactly. So that's what happens currently, we call rcu_kick_nohz_cpu()
on extended grace periods but the IPI doesn't reconsider the tick.
In fact it doesn't do anything at all because the scheduler IPI,
when invoked without a reason, doesn't even call irq_enter()/irq_exit(),
so rcu_needs_cpu() isn't quite called from there.
Now that's going to change with https://lwn.net/Articles/601836/ if
we convert rcu_kick_nohz_cpu() to tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu().
Then we have the choice between two options:
* We can add a check in tick_nohz_full_check() and restart the tick if
necessary.
* Extend rcu_needs_cpu() to restore a similar periodic mode until the
grace periods get some progress.
--
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/
