From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: need_heavy_qs flag for PREEMPT=y kernels
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 23:21:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190812032142.GA171001@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190811211318.GX28441@linux.ibm.com>
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 02:13:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> This leaves NO_HZ_FULL=y&&PREEMPT=y kernels. In that case, RCU is
> more aggressive about using resched_cpu() on CPUs that have not yet
> reported a quiescent state for the current grace period.
Just wanted to ask something - how does resched_cpu() help for this case?
Consider a nohz_full CPU and a PREEMPT=y kernel. Say a single task is running
in kernel mode with scheduler tick off. As we discussed, we have no help from
cond_resched() (since its a PREEMPT=y kernel). Because enough time has
passed (jtsq*3), we send the CPU a re-scheduling IPI.
This seems not that useful. Even if we enter the scheduler due to the
rescheduling flags set on that CPU, nothing will do the rcu_report_qs_rdp()
or rcu_report_qs_rnp() on those CPUs, which are needed to propagate the
quiescent state to the leaf node. Neither will anything to do a
rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() for that CPU. Without this, the grace period
will still end up getting blocked.
Could you clarify which code paths on a nohz_full CPU running PREEMPT=y
kernel actually helps to end the grace period when we call resched_cpu() on
it? Don't we need atleast do a rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() from the
scheduler IPI handler or from resched_cpu() for the benefit of a nohz_full
CPU? Maybe I should do an experiment to see this all play out.
And I need to write down everything I learnt today before I go crazy... ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-12 3:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-11 18:08 need_heavy_qs flag for PREEMPT=y kernels Joel Fernandes
2019-08-11 18:34 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-11 21:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-11 21:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-11 23:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-12 1:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-12 1:40 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-12 3:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-11 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-12 3:21 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2019-08-12 3:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-12 21:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-12 23:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-13 1:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-13 1:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-13 2:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-13 2:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-13 2:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 17:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 20:04 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 20:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 21:22 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 21:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 21:34 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 21:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 21:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-16 0:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 12:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-19 12:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-19 16:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-19 22:31 ` 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=20190812032142.GA171001@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.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).