From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] doc: rcu: remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:33:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181015023328.GP2674@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181015021349.GB217384@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 07:13:49PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 07:08:27PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 04:17:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 02:29:55PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > The Requirements.html document says "Disabling Preemption Does Not Block
> > > > Grace Periods". However this is no longer true with the RCU
> > > > consolidation. Lets remove the obsolete (non-)requirement entirely.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > >
> > > Good catch, queued, thank you!
> >
> > Thanks! By the way after I sent the patch, I also tried Oleg's experiment to
> > confirm that this is indeed obsolete. :)
> >
> > One thing interesting came up when I tried synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> > instead of synchronize_rcu() in Oleg's experiment, I still saw a multiple
> > millisecond delay between when the rcu read section completely and the
> > synchronize_rcu_expedited returns:
> >
> > For example, with synchronize_rcu_expedited, the 'SPIN done' and the 'SYNC
> > done' are about 3 millisecond apart:
> > [ 77.599142] SPIN start
> > [ 77.601595] SYNC start
> > [ 82.604950] SPIN done!
> > [ 82.607836] SYNC done!
> > I saw anywhere from 2-6 milliseconds.
> >
> > The reason I bring this up is according to Requirements.html: In some cases,
> > the multi-millisecond synchronize_rcu() latencies are unacceptable. In these
> > cases, synchronize_rcu_expedited() may be used instead,.. so either I messed
> > something up in the experiment, or I need to update this part of the document ;-)
In normal testing, 2-6 milliseconds is indeed excessive. Could you please
point me at Oleg's experiment? Also, what CONFIG_PREEMPT setting were
you using? (My guess is CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.)
> So I realized I'm running in Qemu so it could also be a scheduling delay of
> the vcpu thread. So apologies about the noise if the experiment works fine
> for you.
I used rcuperf, which might not be doing the same thing as Oleg's
experiment.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-15 2:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-14 21:29 [PATCH RFC] doc: rcu: remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-10-14 23:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-15 2:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-15 2:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-15 2:33 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-10-15 2:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-15 2:50 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-15 6:05 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-10-15 11:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-15 19:39 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-15 19:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-15 20:15 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-15 21:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-16 11:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-16 20:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-17 16:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-17 18:15 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-17 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-18 2:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-18 14:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-19 0:03 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-19 0:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-19 1:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-10-19 1:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-19 1:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-19 1:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-10-19 2:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-19 2:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-10-19 3:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-19 12:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-19 17:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-19 18:11 ` 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=20181015023328.GP2674@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).