From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] irq_work: Implement remote queueing
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:06:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140514090629.GC30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1400019956-25511-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3226 bytes --]
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:25:54AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> irq work currently only supports local callbacks. However its code
> is mostly ready to run remote callbacks and we have some potential user.
>
> The full nohz subsystem currently open codes its own remote irq work
> on top of the scheduler ipi when it wants a CPU to reevaluate its next
> tick. However this ad hoc solution bloats the scheduler IPI.
>
> Lets just extend the irq work subsystem to support remote queuing on top
> of the generic SMP IPI to handle this kind of user. This shouldn't add
> noticeable overhead.
>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> 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>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> ---
> include/linux/irq_work.h | 2 ++
> kernel/irq_work.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> kernel/smp.c | 4 ++++
> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/irq_work.h b/include/linux/irq_work.h
> index 19ae05d..ae44aa2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/irq_work.h
> +++ b/include/linux/irq_work.h
> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ void init_irq_work(struct irq_work *work, void (*func)(struct irq_work *))
> #define DEFINE_IRQ_WORK(name, _f) struct irq_work name = { .func = (_f), }
>
> bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work);
> +bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu);
> +
> void irq_work_run(void);
> void irq_work_sync(struct irq_work *work);
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> index a82170e..9f9be55 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -56,11 +56,28 @@ void __weak arch_irq_work_raise(void)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Enqueue the irq_work @entry unless it's already pending
> + * Enqueue the irq_work @work on @cpu unless it's already pending
> * somewhere.
> *
> * Can be re-enqueued while the callback is still in progress.
> */
> +bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
> +{
> + /* Only queue if not already pending */
> + if (!irq_work_claim(work))
> + return false;
> +
> + /* All work should have been flushed before going offline */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(cpu));
WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi());
> +
> + llist_add(&work->llnode, &per_cpu(irq_work_list, cpu));
> + native_send_call_func_single_ipi(cpu);
At the very leastestest make that:
if (llist_add(&work->llnode, &per_cpu(irq_work_list, cpu)))
native_send_call_func_single_ipi(cpu);
But ideally, also test the IRQ_WORK_LAZY support, its weird to have that
only be supported for the other queue.
Hmm, why do we need that LAZY crap, that completely wrecks a perfectly
simple thing.
The changelog (bc6679aef673f), not the printk() usage make much sense,
printk() can't cause an IPI storm... printk() isn't fast enough to storm
anything.
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue_on);
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-14 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 1/3] irq_work: Implement remote queueing Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-14 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-05-14 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 11:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-14 11:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 12:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-14 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 13:51 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-14 13:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 14:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-13 22:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] nohz: Move full nohz kick to its own IPI 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=20140514090629.GC30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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