On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > > supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add
> > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() semantics to cond_resched(), I got told "no",
> > > but perhaps it is time to try again.
> >
> > Well, you got told: "ARRGH my benchmark goes all regress", or something
> > along those lines. Didn't we recently dig out those commits for some
> > reason or other?
> >
> > Finding out what benchmark that was and running it against this patch
> > would make sense.
See commit:
4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU")
Someone actually wrote down what the problem was.
> > Also, I seem to have missed, why are we going through this again?
>
> Well, the point I've brought that up is because having basically two
> APIs for cond_resched is more than confusing. Basically all longer in
> kernel loops do cond_resched() but it seems that this will not help the
> silence RCU lockup detector in rare cases where nothing really wants to
> schedule. I am really not sure whether we want to sprinkle
> cond_resched_rcu_qs at random places just to silence RCU detector...
Right.. now, this is obviously all PREEMPT=n code, which therefore also
implies this is rcu-sched.
Paul, now doesn't rcu-sched, when the grace-period has been long in
coming, try and force it? And doesn't that forcing include prodding CPUs
with resched_cpu() ?
I'm thinking not, because if it did, that would make cond_resched()
actually schedule, which would then call into rcu_note_context_switch()
which would then make RCU progress, no?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>