On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> The point is to generally unify the 'out' paths - i.e. to merge it
> with the rcu_read_unlock() as well, so that we have really simple
> gotos and only a single exit path.
Maybe just have the rcu read-locking be done in the *caller* (possibly
through using just a helper wrapper function that does nothing but the
locking), so that you can just do a simple "return false" in the
function itself.
That said, it worries me a bit that we do that spinning while holding
the RCU read lock in the first place. Yes, we stop spinning if
"need_resched()" is set, but what effect - if any - does all of this
have on RCU latency? If somebody is waiting for a RCU grace period,
I'm not seeing that setting need-resched...
At least with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, the read-unlock is *not* just doing
a preempt-disable, so it's not necessarily just about need_resched().
It does all the magic with 'rcu_read_unlock_special.s' too..
Adding Paul. From a RCU locking standpoint, the thing is basically
(not the real code, edited down):
rcu_read_lock();
while (sem->owner == owner) {
if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched())
break;
cpu_relax_lowlatency();
}
rcu_read_unlock();
so we busy-loop while holding the RCU read lock while
sem->owner == owner && owner->on_cpu && !need_resched()
is true. That is usually not very long, but we've already had
watchdogs go off when we get this wrong, so..
Paul, comments? Are there particular latency concerns wrt
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU here? Or am I just being silly?
Linus
--
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/
