From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, MarkRutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [rcu] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:28:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150204162814.GG5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423066256.24415.13.camel@AMDC1943>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:10:56PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On śro, 2015-02-04 at 07:56 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:22:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually the timeout versions but I think that doesn't matter.
> > > The wait_on_bit will busy-loop with testing for the bit. Inside the loop
> > > it calls the 'action' which in my case will be bit_wait_io_timeout().
> > > This calls schedule_timeout().
> >
> > Ah, good point.
> >
> > > See proof of concept in attachment. One observed issue: hot unplug from
> > > commandline takes a lot more time. About 7 seconds instead of ~0.5.
> > > Probably I did something wrong.
> >
> > Well, you do set the timeout to five seconds, and so if the condition
> > does not get set before the surviving CPU finds its way to the
> > out_of_line_wait_on_bit_timeout(), you are guaranteed to wait for at
> > least five seconds.
> >
> > One alternative approach would be to have a loop around a series of
> > shorter waits. Other thoughts?
>
> Right! That was the issue. It seems it works. I'll think also on
> self-adapting interval as you said below. I'll test it more and send a
> patch.
Sounds good!
Are you doing ARM, ARM64, or both? I of course vote for both. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
> >
> > > > You know, this situation is giving me a bad case of nostalgia for the
> > > > old Sequent Symmetry and NUMA-Q hardware. On those platforms, the
> > > > outgoing CPU could turn itself off, and thus didn't need to tell some
> > > > other CPU when it was ready to be turned off. Seems to me that this
> > > > self-turn-off capability would be a great feature for future systems!
> > >
> > > There are a lot more issues with hotplug on ARM...
> >
> > Just trying to clean up this particular corner at the moment. ;-)
> >
> > > Patch/RFC attached.
> >
> > Again, I believe that you will need to loop over a shorter timeout
> > in order to get reasonable latencies. If waiting a millisecond at
> > a time is an energy-efficiency concern (don't know why it would be
> > in this rare case, but...), then one approach would be to start
> > with very short waits, then increase the wait time, for example,
> > doubling the wait time on each pass through the loop would result
> > in a smallish number of wakeups, but would mean that you waited
> > no more than twice as long as necessary.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-04 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-01 2:59 [rcu] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] Fengguang Wu
2015-02-03 10:01 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-03 16:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-04 11:39 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 13:00 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-04 13:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-04 14:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 15:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-04 15:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-04 15:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-04 15:22 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 15:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-04 16:10 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2015-02-04 16:43 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 13:13 ` 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=20150204162814.GG5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=k.kozlowski@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
/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).