From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
akpm@osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: enable preemption in delay
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 14:44:39 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805251406260.3295@apollo.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0805242306280.3977@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Sat, 24 May 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The RT team has been searching for a nasty latency. This latency shows
> up out of the blue and has been seen to be as big as 5ms!
>
> @@ -44,12 +44,33 @@ static void delay_loop(unsigned long loo
> static void delay_tsc(unsigned long loops)
> {
> unsigned long bclock, now;
> + int cpu;
>
> - preempt_disable(); /* TSC's are per-cpu */
> + preempt_disable();
> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> rdtscl(bclock);
> do {
> rep_nop();
> rdtscl(now);
> + /* Allow RT tasks to run */
> + preempt_enable();
> + preempt_disable();
> + /*
> + * It is possible that we moved to another CPU,
> + * and since TSC's are per-cpu we need to
> + * calculate that. The delay must guarantee that
> + * we wait "at least" the amount of time. Being
> + * moved to another CPU could make the wait longer
> + * but we just need to make sure we waited long
> + * enough. Rebalance the counter for this CPU.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
Eeek, once you migrated you do this all the time. you need to update
cpu here.
> + if ((now-bclock) >= loops)
> + break;
Also this is really dangerous with unsynchronized TSCs. You might get
migrated and return immediately because the TSC on the other CPU is
far ahead.
What you really want is something like the patch below, but we should
reuse the sched_clock_cpu() thingy to make that simpler. Looking into
that right now.
Thanks,
tglx
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c b/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c
index 4535e6d..66a3c32 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c
@@ -40,17 +40,51 @@ static void delay_loop(unsigned long loops)
:"0" (loops));
}
+/*
+ * 5 usec on a 1GHZ machine. Not necessarily correct, but not too long
+ * either.
+ */
+#define TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT 5000
+
/* TSC based delay: */
static void delay_tsc(unsigned long loops)
{
unsigned long bclock, now;
+ int cpu;
- preempt_disable(); /* TSC's are per-cpu */
+ preempt_disable();
+ cpu = smp_processor_id();
rdtscl(bclock);
do {
rep_nop();
- rdtscl(now);
- } while ((now-bclock) < loops);
+
+ /* Allow RT tasks to run */
+ preempt_enable();
+ preempt_disable();
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that we moved to another CPU, and
+ * since TSC's are per-cpu we need to calculate
+ * that. The delay must guarantee that we wait "at
+ * least" the amount of time. Being moved to another
+ * CPU could make the wait longer but we just need to
+ * make sure we waited long enough. Rebalance the
+ * counter for this CPU.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
+ if (loops <= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT)
+ break;
+ cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ rdtscl(bclock);
+ loops -= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT;
+ } else {
+ rdtscl(now);
+ if ((now - bclock) >= loops)
+ break;
+ loops -= (now - bclock);
+ bclock = now;
+ }
+ } while (loops > 0);
preempt_enable();
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-25 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-25 3:11 Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 12:44 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2008-05-25 13:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 13:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 13:19 ` Alan Cox
2008-05-25 13:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 20:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-05-25 13:35 ` [PATCH -v2] " Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 13:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 13:51 ` [PATCH -v3] " Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 15:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 15:13 ` [PATCH -v4] " Steven Rostedt
2008-05-25 18:01 ` [PATCH] " Pavel Machek
2008-05-28 13:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-05-31 7:18 ` Pavel Machek
2008-05-25 18:53 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-05-25 19:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-05-25 19:28 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-05-25 19:32 ` Steven Rostedt
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=alpine.LFD.1.10.0805251406260.3295@apollo.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=clark.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=lclaudio@uudg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®