From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756016Ab2IBKrR (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2012 06:47:17 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:33590 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755974Ab2IBKrQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2012 06:47:16 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 217.70.178.144 X-Originating-IP: 50.43.46.74 Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 03:47:07 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/23] rcu: Prevent force_quiescent_state() memory contention Message-ID: <20120902104707.GD7767@leaf> References: <20120830181811.GA29154@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1346350718-30937-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1346350718-30937-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1346350718-30937-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:18:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c [...] > @@ -1824,16 +1825,35 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, int (*f)(struct rcu_data *)) > static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp) > { > unsigned long flags; > - struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp); > + bool ret; > + struct rcu_node *rnp; > + struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; > + > + /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ > + rnp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, raw_smp_processor_id())->mynode; What makes this use of raw_smp_processor_id() safe? (And, could you document the answer here?) > + for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { > + ret = (ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS) || > + !raw_spin_trylock(&rnp->fqslock); So, the root lock will still get trylocked by one CPU per second-level tree node, just not by every CPU? > @@ -2721,10 +2741,14 @@ static void __init rcu_init_levelspread(struct rcu_state *rsp) > static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp, > struct rcu_data __percpu *rda) > { > - static char *buf[] = { "rcu_node_level_0", > - "rcu_node_level_1", > - "rcu_node_level_2", > - "rcu_node_level_3" }; /* Match MAX_RCU_LVLS */ > + static char *buf[] = { "rcu_node_0", > + "rcu_node_1", > + "rcu_node_2", > + "rcu_node_3" }; /* Match MAX_RCU_LVLS */ Why rename these? - Josh Triplett