On Sat, 2019-06-22 at 12:13 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:26:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 06:08:19PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 15:25 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:59:30PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 14:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:19:07PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > > > > [Note: Just before posting this I noticed that the
> > > > > > > invoke_rcu_core
> > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > is part of the latest RCU pull request, and it has a patch
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > addresses this in a more complicated way that appears to deal
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > bare irq-disabled sequence as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Far easier to deal with it than to debug the lack of it. ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assuming we need/want to support such sequences, is the
> > > > > > > invoke_rcu_core() call actually going to result in scheduling
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > sooner? resched_curr() just does the same setting of
> > > > > > > need_resched
> > > > > > > when it's the same cpu.
> > > > > > > ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, invoke_rcu_core() can in some cases invoke the scheduler
> > > > > > sooner.
> > > > > > Setting the CPU-local bits might not have effect until the next
> > > > > > interrupt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how (in the non-
> > > > > use_softirq
> > > > > case). It just calls wake_up_process(), which in resched_curr()
> > > > > will
> > > > > set
> > > > > need_resched but not do an IPI-to-self.
> > > >
> > > > The common non-rt case will be use_softirq. Or are you referring
> > > > specifically to this block of code in current -rcu?
> > > >
> > > > } else if (exp && irqs_were_disabled && !use_softirq
> > > > &&
> > > > !t-
> > > > >rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs) {
> > > > // Safe to awaken and we get no help from
> > > > enabling
> > > > // irqs, unlike bh/preempt.
> > > > invoke_rcu_core();
> > >
> > > Yes, that one. If that block is removed the else path should be
> > > sufficient,
> > > now that an IPI-to-self has been added.
> >
> > I will give it a try and let you know what happens.
>
> How about the following?
Looks good, thanks.
-Scott
