On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:30:29AM -0600, Yan Zhai wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 2:30 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I could not see the reason for 1sec (HZ) delays.
> >
> > Would calling rcu_softirq_qs() every ~10ms instead be a serious issue ?
> >
> The trouble scenarios are often when we need to detach an ad-hoc BPF
> tracing program, or restart a monitoring service. It is fine as long
> as they do not block for 10+ seconds or even completely stall under
> heavy traffic. Raising a QS every few ms or HZ both work in such
> cases.
>
> > In anycase, if this all about rcu_tasks, I would prefer using a macro
> > defined in kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > instead of having a hidden constant in a networking core function.
>
> Paul E. McKenney was suggesting either current form or
>
> local_bh_enable();
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable());
> else
> local_bh_enable();
>
> With an interval it might have to be
> "rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable(), &next_qs);" to avoid an
> unnecessary extern/static var. Will it make more sense to you?
I was thinking in terms of something like this (untested):
#define rcu_softirq_qs_enable(enable_stmt, oldj) \
do { \
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && \
time_after(oldj + HZ / 10, jiffies) { \
rcu_softirq_qs(); \
(oldj) = jiffies; \
} \
do { enable_stmt; } while (0) \
} while (0)
Then the call could be "rcu_softirq_qs_enable(local_bh_enable(), last_qs)",
where last_qs is initialized by the caller to jiffies.
The reason for putting "enable_stmt;" into anothor do-while loop is
in case someone typos an "else" as the first part of the "enable_stmt"
argument.
Would that work?
Thanx, Paul
