From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Explain why rcu_all_qs() is a stub in preemptible TREE RCU
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:46:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210706164611.GD4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210705234344.104239-1-frederic@kernel.org>
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 01:43:43AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> cond_resched() reports an RCU quiescent state only in non-preemptible
> TREE RCU implementation. Provide an explanation for the different
> behaviour in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index cf16f8fda9a6..db374cb38eb2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -7780,6 +7780,19 @@ int __sched __cond_resched(void)
> preempt_schedule_common();
> return 1;
> }
> + /*
> + * A process spending a long time in the kernel space might
> + * have too few opportunities to report quiescent states
> + * when CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n because then the tick can't know
> + * if it's interrupting an RCU read side critical section. In the
> + * absence of voluntary sleeps, the last resort resides in tracking
> + * calls to cond_resched() which always imply quiescent states.
> + *
> + * On the other hand, preemptible RCU has a real RCU read side
> + * tracking that allows the tick for reporting interrupted quiescent
> + * states or, in the worst case, deferred quiescent states after
> + * rcu_read_unlock().
> + */
> #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> rcu_all_qs();
> #endif
Looks like a good addition! I have wordsmithed the comment and
commit log a bit. If Peter wants to take either version of this:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
In the meantime, I have queued it for v5.15.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 41a95363ac9f020cc0e4fcc4b73015c60b6620f0
Author: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Date: Tue Jul 6 01:43:43 2021 +0200
rcu: Explain why rcu_all_qs() is a stub in preemptible TREE RCU
The cond_resched() function reports an RCU quiescent state only in
non-preemptible TREE RCU implementation. This commit therefore adds a
comment explaining why cond_resched() does nothing in preemptible kernels.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index cf16f8fda9a6..eae24fdf3820 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -7780,6 +7780,17 @@ int __sched __cond_resched(void)
preempt_schedule_common();
return 1;
}
+ /*
+ * In preemptible kernels, ->rcu_read_lock_nesting tells the tick
+ * whether the current CPU is in an RCU read-side critical section,
+ * so the tick can report quiescent states even for CPUs looping
+ * in kernel context. In contrast, in non-preemptible kernels,
+ * RCU readers leave no in-memory hints, which means that CPU-bound
+ * processes executing in kernel context might never report an
+ * RCU quiescent state. Therefore, the following code causes
+ * cond_resched() to report a quiescent state, but only when RCU
+ * is in urgent need of one.
+ */
#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
rcu_all_qs();
#endif
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-06 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-05 23:43 Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-05 23:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Remove needless preemption disablement in rcu_all_qs() Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-06 7:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-06 12:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-06 13:28 ` Boqun Feng
2021-07-06 16:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-06 16:46 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
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=20210706164611.GD4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®