From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Stop chasing QS if another CPU did it for us
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:58:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101210225855.GJ2125@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1292015471-19227-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:11:10PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> When a CPU is idle and others CPUs handled its extended
> quiescent state to complete grace periods on its behalf,
> it will catch up with completed grace periods numbers
> when it wakes up.
>
> But at this point there might be no more grace period to
> complete, but still the woken CPU always keeps its stale
> qs_pending value and will then continue to chase quiescent
> states even if its not needed anymore.
>
> This results in clusters of spurious softirqs until a new
> real grace period is started. Because if we continue to
> chase quiescent states but we have completed every grace
> periods, rcu_report_qs_rdp() is puzzled and makes that
> state run into infinite loops.
>
> As suggested by Lai Jiangshan, just reset qs_pending if
> someone completed every grace periods on our behalf.
Nice!!!
I have queued this patch, and followed it up with a patch that changes
the condition to "rnp->qsmask & rdp->grpmask", which indicates that RCU
needs a quiescent state from the CPU, and is valid regardless of how
messed up the CPU is about which grace period is which.
I am making a similar change to the check in __note_new_gpnum().
Seem reasonable?
Thanx, Paul
> Suggested-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index ccdc04c..8c4ed60 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -681,6 +681,14 @@ __rcu_process_gp_end(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_dat
>
> /* Remember that we saw this grace-period completion. */
> rdp->completed = rnp->completed;
> +
> + /*
> + * If another CPU handled our extended quiescent states and
> + * we have no more grace period to complete yet, then stop
> + * chasing quiescent states.
> + */
> + if (rdp->completed == rnp->gpnum)
> + rdp->qs_pending = 0;
> }
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.3.2
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-10 22:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-10 21:11 [PATCH 0/2 v2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-10 21:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Stop chasing QS if another CPU did it for us Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-10 22:58 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-12-10 23:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-10 21:14 ` [PATCH 0/2 v2] rcu: Fix series of spurious RCU softirqs Frederic Weisbecker
[not found] ` <1292015471-19227-3-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
2010-12-10 23:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-10 23:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-10 23:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-11 0:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-11 0:15 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-11 0:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-11 1:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-11 6:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-11 0:00 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-11 0:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-11 0:51 ` 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=20101210225855.GJ2125@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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