On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:59:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no?
> >
> > Maybe. Right now, cond_resched_rcu_qs() gets a quiescent state to
> > the RCU core in less than one jiffy, with my other change, this becomes
> > a handful of jiffies depending on HZ and NR_CPUS. I expect this
> > increase to a handful of jiffies to be a non-event.
> >
> > After my upcoming patch, cond_resched() will get a quiescent state to
> > the RCU core in about ten seconds. While I am am not all that nervous
> > about the increase from less than a jiffy to a handful of jiffies,
> > increasing to ten seconds via cond_resched() does make me quite nervous.
> > Past experience indicates that someone's kernel will likely be fatally
> > inconvenienced by this magnitude of change.
> >
> > Or am I misunderstanding what you are proposing?
>
> No, that is indeed what I was proposing. Hurm.. OK let me ponder that a
> bit. There might be a few games we can play with !PREEMPT to avoid IPIs.
>
> Thing is, I'm slightly uncomfortable with de-coupling rcu-sched from
> actual schedule() calls.
OK, what is the source of your discomfort?
There are several intermediate levels of evasive action:
0. If there is another runnable task and certain other conditions
are met, cond_resched() will invoke schedule(), which will
provide an RCU quiescent state.
1. All cond_resched_rcu_qs() invocations increment the CPU's
rcu_qs_ctr per-CPU variable, which is treated by later
invocations of RCU core as a quiescent state. (I have
a patch queued that causes RCU to ignore changes to this
counter until the grace period is a few jiffies old.)
In this case, the rcu_node locks plus smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
provide the needed ordering.
2. If any cond_resched_rcu_qs() sees that an expedited grace
period is waiting on the current CPU, it invokes rcu_sched_qs()
to force RCU to see the quiescent state. (To your point,
rcu_sched_qs() is normally called from schedule(), but also
from the scheduling-clock interrupt when it interrupts
usermode or idle.)
Again, the rcu_node locks plus smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
provide the needed ordering.
3. If the grace period extends for more than 50 milliseconds
(by default, tunable), all subsequent cond_resched_rcu_qs()
invocations on that CPU turn into momentary periods of
idleness from RCU's viewpoint. (Atomically add 2 to the
dyntick-idle counter.)
Here, the atomic increment is surrounded by smp_mb__*_atomic()
to provide the needed ordering, which should be a good substitute
for actually passing through schedule().
4. If the grace period extends for more than 21 seconds (by default),
we emit an RCU CPU stall warning and then do a resched_cpu().
I am proposing also doing a resched_cpu() halfway to RCU CPU
stall-warning time.
5. An RCU-sched expedited grace period does a local resched_cpu()
from its IPI handler to force the CPU through a quiescent
state. (Yes, I could just invoke resched_cpu() from the
task orchestrating the expedited grace period, but this approach
allows more common code between RCU-preempt and RCU-sched
expedited grace periods.)
> > > In fact, by doing the IPI thing we get the entire cond_resched*()
> > > family, and we could add the should_resched() guard to
> > > cond_resched_rcu().
> >
> > So that cond_resched_rcu_qs() looks something like this, in order
> > to avoid the function call in the case where the scheduler has nothing
> > to do?
>
> I was actually thinking of this:
Oh! I had forgotten about cond_resched_rcu(), and thought you did a typo.
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 2d0c82e1d348..2dc7d8056b2a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -3374,9 +3374,11 @@ static inline int signal_pending_state(long state, struct task_struct *p)
> static inline void cond_resched_rcu(void)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) || !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - cond_resched();
> - rcu_read_lock();
> + if (should_resched(1)) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + cond_resched();
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + }
> #endif
> }
>
>
--
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>