On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 01:27:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Second cut of "big hammer" expedited RCU grace periods, but only > > for rcu_bh. This creates another softirq vector, so that entering > > this softirq vector will have forced an rcu_bh quiescent state (as > > noted by Dave Miller). Use smp_call_function() to invoke > > raise_softirq() on all CPUs in order to cause this to happen. > > Track the CPUs that have passed through a quiescent state (or gone > > offline) with a cpumask. > > hm, i'm still asking whether doing this would be simpler via a > reschedule vector - which not only is an existing facility but also > forces all RCU domains through a quiescent state - not just bh-RCU > participants. > > Triggering a new softirq is in no way simpler that doing an SMP > cross-call - in fact softirqs are a finite resource so using some > other facility would be preferred. > > Am i missing something? Well, it is entirely possible that I am the one missing something. So, here is the line of reasoning that lead me to the bh-RCU approach: o The two flavors of RCU that can support an off-to-the-side expedited implementation are RCU-bh and RCU-sched. Preemptable RCU requires a more intrusive approach for normal RCU, due to the fact that RCU readers can be preempted and can block on locks. Therefore, forcing a reschedule on each CPU does not force a grace period for preemptable RCU. Of course, there is an easy workaround -- for preemptable RCU, make the expedited primitive just directly invoke synchronize_rcu(). Although this would not provide any speedup, it would at least guarantee correct operation. But I believe that we need to have a way to expedite grace periods on -rt kernels with preemptable RCU as well as on non-real-time kernels. o As you say, an RCU-sched grace period implies an RCU-bh grace period on non-realtime kernels. Unfortunately, for -rt kernels, softirq handlers can be preempted and can block while waiting for locks, so forcing a reschedule on each CPU does not force a grace period for RCU-bh in a -rt kernel. Again, there is an easy workaround: in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernels, make the RCU-bh variant of the expedited primitive invoke a new synchronize_rcu_bh() primitive. Of course, allowing an RCU-sched grace period to imply an RCU-bh grace period loses the DoS-resistance advantages of RCU-bh. However, very few of the RCU updates in the kernel take advantage of DoS resistance. Furthermore, Steve's patch did not use RCU-bh, so one could argue that we should forget about DoS-resistance for the time being. Thoughts? o The approach in the previous patch works across all kernel builds, because of the fact that it forces a new softirq handler to run, thus guaranteeing that all prior softirq handlers and RCU-bh read-side critical sections for the CPU in question have completed. o I used a new softirq vector out of laziness. I could instead raise RCU_SOFTIRQ, and then add code to each of the rcu_process_callbacks() functions to ack the expedited raise_softirq(). Easy for me to change, though. I guess I don't have to be -that- lazy. ;-) o So, why RCU-bh rather than RCU-sched? Again, laziness. The RCU-sched approach requires greater intrusiveness into the existing RCU implementations. Nothing wrong with that, given that this is in fact another RCU API member, but given the choice, I would rather do the intruding after dropping Classic RCU. The easiest way I could see to minimize intrusion for RCU-sched is to create a new per-CPU counter that is incremented by each implementation of rcu_qsctr_inc(). But even easier to avoid the rcu_qsctr_inc() code path entirely. Once we have dropped Classic RCU and I have merged Preemptable RCU into Hierarchical RCU, it becomes much more attractive to merge the expediting into the main RCU state machine. Thoughts? Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html