From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list:READ-COPY UPDATE...)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] rcu: Use rcu_gp_kthread_wake() to wake up kthreads
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 01:06:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1406264818-2296-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com> (raw)
The rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function checks for three conditions before waking up
grace period kthreads:
* Is the thread we are trying to wake up the current thread?
* Are the gp_flags zero? (all threads wait on non-zero gp_flags condition)
* Is there no thread created for this flavour, hence nothing to wake up?
If any one of these condition is true, we do not call wake_up().
In rcu_report_qs_rsp(), I added a pr_info() call testing if any of the above
conditions is true, in which case we can avoid calling wake_up(). It turns out
that quite a few actually are. Most of the cases where we can avoid is condition 2
above and condition 1 also occurs quite often. Condition 3 never happens.
I could not test the wake_up() in force_quiescent_state() as that is not
triggered trivially, but I am assuming we can replace wake_up() there too.
Hence this commit tries to avoid calling wake_up() whenever we can by using
rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function.
One concern is the comment which states that we need a memory barrier at that
location which is being implied by the wake_up(). Should we put an smp_mb() and
just not rely on the barrier provided by wake_up()? Thoughts?
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 72e0b1f..d0e0d6e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1938,7 +1938,8 @@ static void rcu_report_qs_rsp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags)
{
WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp));
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu_get_root(rsp)->lock, flags);
- wake_up(&rsp->gp_wq); /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
+ /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
+ rcu_gp_kthread_wake(rsp);
}
/*
@@ -2516,7 +2517,8 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp)
ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) =
ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) | RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp_old->lock, flags);
- wake_up(&rsp->gp_wq); /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
+ /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
+ rcu_gp_kthread_wake(rsp);
}
/*
--
2.0.1
next reply other threads:[~2014-07-25 5:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-25 5:06 Pranith Kumar [this message]
2014-07-25 6:24 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-25 15:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-25 22:23 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-25 23:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-25 23:29 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-27 17:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-25 14:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-25 20:19 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-25 22:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-27 15:55 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-27 16:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-27 16:44 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-27 17:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=1406264818-2296-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--to=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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