mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] nohz: Use IPI implicit full barrier against rq->nr_running r/w
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:28:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1395253702-12489-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1395253702-12489-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>

A full dynticks CPU is allowed to stop its tick when a single task runs.
Meanwhile when a new task gets enqueued, the CPU must be notified so that
it restart its tick to maintain local fairness and other accounting details.

This notification is performed by way of an IPI. Then when the target
receives the IPI, we expect it to see the new value of rq->nr_running.

Hence the following ordering scenario:

   CPU 0                   CPU 1

   write rq->running       get IPI
   smp_wmb()               smp_rmb()
   send IPI                read rq->nr_running

But Paul Mckenney says that nowadays IPIs imply a full barrier on
all architectures. So we can safely remove this pair and rely on the
implicit barriers that comes along IPI send/receive. Lets
just comment on this new assumption.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c  |  9 +++++----
 kernel/sched/sched.h | 10 ++++++++--
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index a07c3a4..6d32618 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -666,10 +666,11 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(void)
 
        rq = this_rq();
 
-       /* Make sure rq->nr_running update is visible after the IPI */
-       smp_rmb();
-
-       /* More than one running task need preemption */
+       /*
+	* More than one running task need preemption.
+	* nr_running update is assumed to be visible
+	* after IPI is sent from wakers.
+	*/
        if (rq->nr_running > 1)
                return false;
 
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 3b165c1..ec248dc 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1231,8 +1231,14 @@ static inline void inc_nr_running(struct rq *rq)
 #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
 	if (rq->nr_running == 2) {
 		if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(rq->cpu)) {
-			/* Order rq->nr_running write against the IPI */
-			smp_wmb();
+			/*
+			 * Tick is needed if more than one task runs on a CPU.
+			 * Send the target an IPI to kick it out of nohz mode.
+			 *
+			 * We assume that IPI implies full memory barrier and the
+			 * new value of rq->nr_running is visible on reception
+			 * from the target.
+			 */
 			tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(rq->cpu);
 		}
        }
-- 
1.8.3.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-03-19 18:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-19 18:28 [RFC PATCH 0/3] nohz: Move nohz kick out of scheduler IPI Frederic Weisbecker
2014-03-19 18:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] smp: Non busy-waiting IPI queue Frederic Weisbecker
2014-03-19 18:28 ` [PATCH 2/3] nohz: Move full nohz kick to its own IPI Frederic Weisbecker
2014-03-19 18:28 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2014-05-13 22:25 [PATCH 0/3] nohz: Move nohz kick out of scheduler IPI, v5 Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-13 22:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] nohz: Use IPI implicit full barrier against rq->nr_running r/w Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-14  9:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 11:38     ` Frederic Weisbecker

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=1395253702-12489-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@fb.com \
    --cc=khilman@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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

Powered by JetHome