From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751741Ab0CIMwX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:52:23 -0500
Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:54499 "EHLO
	hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750934Ab0CIMwV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:52:21 -0500
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=4u-V8yTdJKsA:10 a=7U3hwN5JcxgA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=D19gQVrFAAAA:8 a=omOdbC7AAAAA:8 a=lok9ytwozWHpPeGjw2oA:9 a=TB4dGbZ8qZGGIkWgjssA:7 a=TQdA9DaK8zyzm00ej7q2uHhO9zIA:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Originating-IP: 74.67.89.75
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: don't ignore preempt_disable() in the idle
 loop
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>, josh@joshtriplett.org,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B962D57.1000406@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <4B962D57.1000406@cn.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc.
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:52:18 -0500
Message-ID: <1268139138.10871.1868.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:13 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Current, synchronize_sched() ignores preempt-disable()
> sequences in the idle loop. It makes synchronize_sched()
> is not so pure, and it hurts tracing.
> 
> Paul have a proposal before:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/5/140
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/6/496
> But old fix needs to hack into all architectures' idle loops.
> 
> This is another try, it uses the fact that idle loops
> are executing with preept_count()=1.
> But I didn't look deep into all idle loops.

Lai,

Does this (with your patch) fix the bug you were seeing with the ring
buffer code?

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 3ec8160..0761723 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_sched_data);
>  struct rcu_state rcu_bh_state = RCU_STATE_INITIALIZER(rcu_bh_state);
>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_data);
>  
> +#ifndef IDLE_CORE_LOOP_PREEMPT_COUNT
> +#define IDLE_CORE_LOOP_PREEMPT_COUNT (1)
> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   * Return true if an RCU grace period is in progress.  The ACCESS_ONCE()s
>   * permit this function to be invoked without holding the root rcu_node
> @@ -1114,6 +1118,26 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  		raise_softirq(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
>  }
>  
> +static inline int rcu_idle_qs(int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (!rcu_scheduler_active)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (in_softirq())
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (hardirq_count() > (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if ((preempt_count() & PREEMPT_MASK) > IDLE_CORE_LOOP_PREEMPT_COUNT)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Check to see if this CPU is in a non-context-switch quiescent state
>   * (user mode or idle loop for rcu, non-softirq execution for rcu_bh).
> @@ -1127,9 +1151,7 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
>  {
>  	if (!rcu_pending(cpu))
>  		return; /* if nothing for RCU to do. */
> -	if (user ||
> -	    (idle_cpu(cpu) && rcu_scheduler_active &&
> -	     !in_softirq() && hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))) {
> +	if (user || rcu_idle_qs(cpu)) {
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * Get here if this CPU took its interrupt from user
>