From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752219AbdHPQlo (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:41:44 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59658 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751810AbdHPQln (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:41:43 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3D07622B67 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:41:40 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Pratyush Anand , =?UTF-8?B?6rmA64+Z7ZiE?= , john.stultz@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RCU stall when using function_graph Message-ID: <20170816124140.0b4b10e3@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20170816163228.GZ7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170806170220.GQ3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170809125804.GT3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170809144033.GU3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <208e981d-40ec-54fa-6293-5b8e6fe10a84@linaro.org> <20170815092902.252f5e83@gandalf.local.home> <43e0a0bc-bdd4-6bd0-c970-336f2fb01c6d@linaro.org> <20170816100421.318deae2@gandalf.local.home> <20170816163228.GZ7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:32:28 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > Let me see if I understand you... About halfway to the stall limit, > RCU triggers an irq_work (on each CPU that has not yet passed through > a quiescent state, IPIing them in turn?), and if the irq_work has > not completed by the end of the stall limit, RCU adds that to its > stall-warning message. Doesn't even have to be half way through. It could be done at the limit, and then wait a little more. > > Or am I missing something here? No, I think that's what I was suggesting. -- Steve