Re: [PATCH RFC] doc: rcu: remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:24:25AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 05:07:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 08:58:44PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:52:23PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:25:29 -0700
> > > > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:50:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:26:45 -0700
> > > > > > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > > > >   
> > > > > > > Yes, local_irq_restore is light weight, and does not check for reschedules.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I was thinking of case where ksoftirqd is woken up, but does not run unless
> > > > > > > we set the NEED_RESCHED flag. But that should get set anyway since probably
> > > > > > > ksoftirqd is of high enough priority than the currently running task..
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Roughly speaking the scenario could be something like:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > >                  <-- IPI comes in for the expedited GP, sets exp_hint
> > > > > > > local_irq_disable();
> > > > > > > // do a bunch of stuff
> > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock();   <-- This calls the rcu_read_unlock_special which raises
> > > > > > >                          the soft irq, and wakesup softirqd.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If softirqd is of higher priority than the current running task, then
> > > > > > the try_to_wake_up() will set NEED_RESCHED of the current task here.
> > > > > >   
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, only *if*. On my system, ksoftirqd is CFS nice 0. I thought expedited
> > > > > grace periods are quite important and they should complete quickly which is
> > > > > the whole reason for interrupting rcu read sections with an IPI and stuff.
> > > > > IMO there should be no harm in setting NEED_RESCHED unconditionally anyway
> > > > > for possible benefit of systems where the ksoftirqd is not of higher priority
> > > > > than the currently running task, and we need to run it soon on the CPU. But
> > > > > I'm Ok with whatever Paul and you want to do here.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Setting NEED_RESCHED unconditionally wont help. Because even if we call
> > > > schedule() ksoftirqd will not be scheduled! If it's CFS nice 0, and the
> > > > current task still has quota to run, if you call schedule, you'll just
> > > > waste time calculating that the current task should still be running.
> > > > It's equivalent to calling yield() (which is why we removed all yield()
> > > > users in the kernel, because *all* of them were buggy!). This is *why*
> > > > it only calls schedule *if* softirqd is of higher priority.
> > > 
> > > Yes, ok. you are right the TTWU path should handle setting the NEED_RESCHED
> > > flag or not and unconditionally setting it does not get us anything. I had to
> > > go through the code a bit since it has been a while since I explored it.
> > > 
> > > So Paul, I'm Ok with your latest patch for the issue we discussed and don't
> > > think much more can be done barring raising of ksofitrqd priorities :-) So I
> > > guess the synchronize_rcu_expedited will just cope with the deal between
> > > local_irq_enable and the next scheduling point.. :-)
> > 
> > Thank you both!
> > 
> > Indeed, real-time systems need to be configured carefully, especially if
> > you are crazy enough to run them under high load.  I interpreted "Ok with
> > your latest patch" as an Acked-by, but please let me know if that is a
> > misinterpretation.
> 
> Yes,
> 
> Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

Very good, pre-applied, thank you!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul