From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com,
rafael@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 15/16] rcu: Make RCU-tasks wait for idle tasks
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:20:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140813182030.GD4752@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140813144219.GQ9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:42:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:12:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > That's not an excuse for doing horrible things. And inventing new infra
> > > that needs to wake all CPUs is horrible.
> >
> > Does your patch even work?
>
> Haven't even tried compiling it, but making it work shouldn't be too
> hard.
>
> > Looks like it should, and yes, the idle loop
> > seems quite a bit simpler than it was a few years ago, but we really
> > don't need some strange thing that leaves a CPU idle but not visible as
> > such to RCU.
>
> There's slightly more to it though; things like the x86 mwait idle wait
> functions tend to do far too much; for instance look at:
>
> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c:intel_idle()
OK, let's see if I can follow the idly bouncing ball.
Looks like most arches call cpu_startup_entry(), which calls
arch_cpu_idle_prepare() followed by cpu_idle_loop().
arch_cpu_idle_prepare() is local_fiq_enable() on ARM and empty elsewhere.
cpu_idle_loop() does tick_nohz_idle_enter(), which does some nohz stuff.
It also checks for offline, and invokes arch_cpu_idle_enter(), which
is empty except on x86 and ARM. On ARM, it messes with LEDs, and on
x86 it appears to disable an NMI-based watchdog timer.
Interrupts are disabled, and we do either cpu_idle_poll() if specified
or cpuidle_idle_call(). cpu_idle_poll() is the old-time idle loop,
with rcu_idle_enter()/_exit() and enabling interrupts prior to spinning.
No sign of stop_critical_timings(), though. So let's not bury
rcu_idle_enter() in stop_critical_timings().
cpuidle_idle_call() does a fastpath irq-enable/exit if need-resched,
then does stop_critical_timings() and rcu_idle_enter(). Then we
have the buried complexity with cpuidle_select(), but a negative
return says to check need-resched and enable interrupts or to
invoke arch_cpu_idle(), which executes various sleep instructions
on various architectures. Some notable variants:
o ARM has an arm_pm_idle() function pointer so that different
SoCs can have different idle-power-down sequences. Alternatively,
some SoCs have functions named CPUNAME_do_idle(), for example,
imx5_cpu_do_idle(). These seem to invoke processor.do_idle().
Pushing rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit() down below
arch_cpu_idle() on ARM looks to be asking for it.
o ARM64 does cpu_do_idle, which does a wait-for-interrupt instruction.
o AVR calls into assembly, hand-coding the need-resched check.
Not sure why that would still be needed.
o CRIS has one function that just enables interrupts and returns,
and anohter that enables interrupts and halts.
o UM times the duration of the idle time based on what appears to
be the time until the next event.
o Unicore does a string of what appear to be no-ops.
o x86 does a couple of levels of indirection, one being the
x86_idle() function pointer and another being the safe_halt()
function pointer.
amd_e400_idle() is a bit ornate, but still does default_idle()
which wrappers the safe_halt() pointer.
And various other architectures seem to work similarly, but lots of
hair here. So Steven, you OK with the underlying arch_cpu_idle()
functions being off-limits to tracing?
Now, if cpuidle_select() returns non-negative, we are dealing with
the CPU-idle governor, which is invoked at the later cpuidle_enter().
Hmmm... On the CPU-idle drivers...
o apm_idle_driver puts the idle loop into the ->enter() function,
apm_cpu_idle().
o ACPI puts the idle loop in acpi_idle_do_entry(), and does call
stop_critical_timings(), but not rcu_idle_enter().
So presumably stop_critical_timings() can nest? Not clear
from the code.
o The CPS driver is even stranger... Is cps_gen_entry_code()
really depositing assembly instructions into a buffer that is
passed back as a function?
o The intel_idle driver is the one with mwait_idle_with_hints(),
so you covered it below.
Your patch covers the cpuidle_enter() transition, which means
that functions like cpuidle_enter(), acpi_idle_enter_c1(), and
acpi_idle_do_entry() would be off-limits to trampolining. In the case
of CPS, quite a bit of code.
> We should push the rcu_idle_{enter,exit}() down to around
> mwait_idle_with_hints(), so we don't call half the word with RCU
> disabled.
That would be for the intel_idle.c CPU-idle driver. The other drivers
also need rcu_idle_{enter,exit}().
> > I have already said that I will be happy to rip out the wakeup code
> > when it is no longer needed, and I agree that it would be way better if
> > not needed.
>
> I'd prefer to dtrt now and not needing to fix it later.
Once it works, I might consider it "right" and adjust accordingly.
At the moment, speculation.
> Auditing all idle functions will be somewhat of a pain, but its entirely
> doable. Looking at this stuff, it appears we can clean it up massively;
> see how the generic cpuidle code already has the broadcast logic in, so
> we can remove that from the drivers by setting the right flags.
There is certainly quite a bit of hair in a number of these drivers,
no two ways about it.
> We can similarly pull out the leave_mm() call by adding a
> CPUIDLE_FLAG_TLB_FLUSH. At which point all we'd need to do is mark the
> intel_idle (and all other cpuidle_state::enter functions with __notrace.
That one seems to be specific to intel_idle. But yes, nice to avoid
waking an idle CPU for TLB flushes.
> > But I won't base a patch on hypotheticals. You have already
> > drawn way too much water from -that- well over the past years! ;-)
>
> not entirely sure what you're referring to there ;-)
Heh!
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-13 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-11 22:48 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/16] RCU-tasks implementation Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 01/16] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks() Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 02/16] rcu: Provide cond_resched_rcu_qs() to force quiescent states in long loops Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 03/16] rcu: Add synchronous grace-period waiting for RCU-tasks Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 04/16] rcu: Make TASKS_RCU handle tasks that are almost done exiting Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 05/16] rcu: Export RCU-tasks APIs to GPL modules Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 19:08 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-14 21:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 06/16] rcutorture: Add torture tests for RCU-tasks Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 21:34 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-14 21:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 21:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 07/16] rcutorture: Add RCU-tasks test cases Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 08/16] rcu: Add stall-warning checks for RCU-tasks Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 21:39 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-14 21:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 09/16] rcu: Improve RCU-tasks energy efficiency Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 21:42 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-14 21:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 22:00 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-11 22:48 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 10/16] documentation: Add verbiage on RCU-tasks stall warning messages Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:49 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 11/16] rcu: Defer rcu_tasks_kthread() creation till first call_rcu_tasks() Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 22:28 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-14 22:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:49 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 12/16] rcu: Make TASKS_RCU handle nohz_full= CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 22:55 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-14 23:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:49 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 13/16] rcu: Make rcu_tasks_kthread()'s GP-wait loop allow preemption Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:49 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 14/16] rcu: Remove redundant preempt_disable() from rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch() Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 14:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 14:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 20:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:49 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 15/16] rcu: Make RCU-tasks wait for idle tasks Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 8:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 12:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 13:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-08-13 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 14:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-08-13 14:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 16:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 16:43 ` Jacob Pan
2014-08-13 18:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 18:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 20:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 14:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-13 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 17:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 17:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 18:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 18:20 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-08-13 18:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-13 19:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-11 22:49 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 16/16] rcu: Additional information on RCU-tasks stall-warning messages Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-14 20:46 ` [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 01/16] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks() Pranith Kumar
2014-08-14 21:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-12 23:57 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/16] RCU-tasks implementation 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=20140813182030.GD4752@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--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