From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] time: xtime_lock is held too long
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 00:30:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1304721004.2821.148.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1304713443.20980.124.camel@work-vm>
Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 13:24 -0700, john stultz a écrit :
> So would the easier solution be to just break out timekeeper locking
> from the xtime_lock?
>
> So basically we would just add a timekeeper.lock seqlock and use it to
> protect only the timekeeping code? We can still keep xtime_lock around
> for the tick/jiffies protection (well, until tglx kills jiffies :), but
> gettimeofday and friends wouldn't be blocked for so long.
>
> That should be pretty straight forward now that the timekeeper data is
> completely static to timkeeeping.c.
>
Yes :)
I can see many cpus entering tick_do_update_jiffies64() and all are
calling write_seqlock(&xtime_lock);
Only first one can perform the work, but all others are waiting on the
spinlock, get it, change seqcount, and realize they have nothing to
do...
Meanwhile, a reader must wait that all writers are finished, because of
all seqcount changes storm.
Following patch helps. Of course we might find out why so many cpus (on
my 8 cpus machine !) are calling tick_do_update_jiffies64() at the same
time...
This is basically what I said in my first mail :
Separate logical sections to reduce windows where readers are blocked/spinning.
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
index d5097c4..251b2fe 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static void tick_do_update_jiffies64(ktime_t now)
return;
/* Reevalute with xtime_lock held */
- write_seqlock(&xtime_lock);
+ spin_lock(&xtime_lock.lock);
delta = ktime_sub(now, last_jiffies_update);
if (delta.tv64 >= tick_period.tv64) {
@@ -74,12 +74,15 @@ static void tick_do_update_jiffies64(ktime_t now)
last_jiffies_update = ktime_add_ns(last_jiffies_update,
incr * ticks);
}
+ xtime_lock.sequence++;
+ smp_wmb();
do_timer(++ticks);
-
+ smp_wmb();
+ xtime_lock.sequence++;
/* Keep the tick_next_period variable up to date */
tick_next_period = ktime_add(last_jiffies_update, tick_period);
}
- write_sequnlock(&xtime_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&xtime_lock.lock);
}
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-06 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-04 3:11 [PATCH] time: Add locking to xtime access in get_seconds() John Stultz
2011-05-04 3:52 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-05 2:54 ` john stultz
2011-05-05 5:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-05 6:21 ` john stultz
2011-05-05 6:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-05 8:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-05 18:51 ` john stultz
2011-05-05 14:04 ` [RFC] time: xtime_lock is held too long Eric Dumazet
2011-05-05 14:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-05-05 15:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-05 15:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-05-05 21:01 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-06 1:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-06 6:55 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-06 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-05-06 10:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-06 16:53 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-07 8:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-06 16:59 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-06 17:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-06 17:17 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-06 17:42 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-06 17:50 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-06 19:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-06 20:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-06 20:24 ` john stultz
2011-05-06 22:30 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2011-05-06 22:46 ` john stultz
2011-05-06 23:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-06 23:28 ` john stultz
2011-05-07 5:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-07 7:11 ` Henrik Rydberg
2011-05-09 8:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-05-12 9:13 ` [PATCH] seqlock: don't smp_rmb in seqlock reader spin loop, [PATCH] seqlock: don't smp_rmb in seqlock reader spin loop Milton Miller
2011-05-12 9:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-12 14:08 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-06 20:18 ` [RFC] time: xtime_lock is held too long john stultz
2011-05-05 17:57 ` [PATCH] time: Add locking to xtime access in get_seconds() Andi Kleen
2011-05-05 20:17 ` john stultz
2011-05-05 20:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-05 20:40 ` john stultz
2011-05-05 20:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-05 20:56 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-04 16:51 ` Max Asbock
2011-05-04 21:05 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-04 23:05 ` john stultz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1304721004.2821.148.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®