Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] rcu: coordinate tick dependency during concurrent offlining

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:46:45AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 03:26:28PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:42:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Note this is only locking the rdp's node, not the root node.
> > > Therefore if CPU 0 and CPU 256 are going off at the same time and they
> > > don't belong to the same node, the above won't protect against concurrent
> > > TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU set/clear.
> > > 
> > 
> > Nice, thanks for the careful thoughts. How about moving the counting
> > place to the root node?
> 
> You could but then you'd need to lock the root node.
> 
> > > My suspicion is that we don't need this TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU tick dependency
> > > anymore. I believe it was there because of issues that were fixed with:
> > > 
> > > 	53e87e3cdc15 (timers/nohz: Last resort update jiffies on nohz_full IRQ entry)
> > > and:
> > > 
> > > 	a1ff03cd6fb9 (tick: Detect and fix jiffies update stall)
> > > 
> > > It's unfortunately just suspicion because the reason for that tick dependency
> > > is unclear but I believe it should be safe to remove now.
> > > 
> > 
> > I have gone through this tick dependency again, but got less.
> > 
> > I think at least from the RCU's viewpoint, it is useless since
> > multi_cpu_stop()->rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() has eliminate the
> > requirement for tick interrupt.
> 
> Partly yes.
> 
> > Is there a way to have a convincing test so that these code can be removed?
> > Or this code will be got along with?
> 
> Hmm, Paul might remember which rcutorture scenario would trigger it?

TREE04 on multisocket systems, preferably with faster CPU-hotplug
operations.  This can be accomplished by adding this to the kvm.sh
command line:

	rcutorture.onoff_interval=200 rcutorture.onoff_holdoff=30

It does take some time to run.  I did 4,000 hours worth of TREE04
to confirm lack of bug.  But an 80-CPU dual-socket system can run
10 concurrent instances of TREE04, which gets things down to a more
manageable 400 hours.  Please let me know if you don't have access
to a few such systems.

I will let Frederic identify which commit(s) should be reverted in
order to test the test.

							Thanx, Paul



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux