Re: Taking page faults in RCU critical sections

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

 



On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:08 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 11:50:29AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 7:58 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > Last question, do I need the -rt kernel for preempt RCU?
> > > >
> > > > No, CONFIG_PREEMPT=y suffices.
> > > >
> > > > Note that CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y, AKA -rt, also makes spinlocks (but not
> > > > raw spinlocks) be limited sleeplocks, and thus allows RCU read-side
> > > > critical sections to block when acquiring these sleeping "spinlocks".
> > > > But this is OK, because all of this is still subject to priority boosting.
> > >
> > > Should PREEMPT_RT kernels not throw warnings though when calling
> > > rcu_note_context_switch() in RCU read-side sections?
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h#n331
> > >
> > > I don't run a PREEMPT_RT kernel myself so I can't confirm if these
> > > warnings somehow don't appear, but I figured it would be good to
> > > double check in this discussion.
> >
> > Please ignore my noise, Steven clarified for me in a meeting today
> > that preempt != 0 in that warning, when an a
> > "spinlock-coverted-to-rtmutex for PREEMPT_RT" blocks. So even though
> > the rtmutex blocks in an RCU read-side critical section.
> >
> > In other words, I believe rtmutex is the exception -- It can block in
> > an RCU read-side critical section on any kernel (PREEMPT_RT or
> > otherwise). I could stand corrected though but that's my current
> > understanding.
>
> RCU doesn't know about this distinction, it is just told preempt or not.
> The scheduler passes in @true when the sched_mode is greater than SM_NONE,
> which includes SM_RTLOCK_WAIT.  But this latter is used only in -rt
> kernels, so that you cannot use rtmutexes in RCU read-side critical
> sections in non-rt kernels.
>
> So, in practice, portable code only gets to use spinlocks in RCU read-side
> critical sections.

Ah, true! SM_RTLOCKWAIT only is used in PREEMPT_RT kernels.  This
makes sense, thanks a lot for clarifying.

 - Joel





[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