From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
byungchul.park@lge.com, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 6/8] rcu: Add back the Startedleaf tracepoint
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:38:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180514183823.GF26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180514031541.67247-7-joel@joelfernandes.org>
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 08:15:39PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> In recent discussion [1], the check for whether a leaf believes RCU is
> not idle, is being added back to funnel locking code, to avoid more
> locking. In this we are marking the leaf node for a future grace-period
> and bailing out since a GP is currently in progress. However the
> tracepoint is missing. Lets add it back.
>
> Also add a small comment about why we do this check (basically the point
> is to avoid locking intermediate nodes unnecessarily) and clarify the
> comments in the trace event header now that we are doing traversal of
> one or more intermediate nodes.
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180513190906.GL26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Looks like a good idea, but it does not apply -- which is not a surprise,
given the change rate in this code. I hand-applied as a modification
to c1b3f9fce26f ("rcu: Don't funnel-lock above leaf node if GP in progress")
with attribution, but with the changes below. Please let me know if I
am missing something.
Ah, I see -- this commit depends on your earlier name-change commit.
I therefore made this patch use the old names.
> ---
> include/trace/events/rcu.h | 4 ++--
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/rcu.h b/include/trace/events/rcu.h
> index 539900a9f8c7..dc0bd11739c7 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/rcu.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/rcu.h
> @@ -91,8 +91,8 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_grace_period,
> *
> * "Startleaf": Request a grace period based on leaf-node data.
> * "Prestarted": Someone beat us to the request
> - * "Startedleaf": Leaf-node start proved sufficient.
> - * "Startedleafroot": Leaf-node start proved sufficient after checking root.
> + * "Startedleaf": Leaf and one or more non-root nodes marked for future start.
Actually, we only get to that trace if all we did was mark the leaf
node, right?
> + * "Startedleafroot": all non-root nodes from leaf to root marked for future start.
I got rid of the "non-root" part, given that we had to have marked
the root to break out of the loop.
Thanx, Paul
> * "Startedroot": Requested a nocb grace period based on root-node data.
> * "NoGPkthread": The RCU grace-period kthread has not yet started.
> * "StartWait": Start waiting for the requested grace period.
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 40670047d22c..8401a253e7de 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1593,8 +1593,17 @@ static bool rcu_start_this_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
> goto unlock_out;
> }
> rnp_node->gp_seq_needed = gp_seq_start;
> - if (rcu_seq_state(rcu_seq_current(&rnp->gp_seq)))
> +
> + /*
> + * Check if leaf believes a GP is in progress, if yes we can
> + * bail and avoid more locking. We have already marked the leaf.
> + */
> + if (rcu_seq_state(rcu_seq_current(&rnp->gp_seq))) {
> + trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp_node, rdp, gp_seq_start,
> + TPS("Startedleaf"));
> goto unlock_out;
> + }
> +
> if (rnp_node != rnp && rnp_node->parent != NULL)
> raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp_node);
> if (!rnp_node->parent) {
> --
> 2.17.0.441.gb46fe60e1d-goog
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-14 18:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-14 3:15 [PATCH RFC 0/8] rcu fixes, clean ups for rcu/dev Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 1/8] rcu: Add comment documenting how rcu_seq_snap works Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 3:47 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-05-14 5:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-14 17:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 1:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-15 3:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 7:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-15 12:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 18:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-15 19:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 22:55 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-16 15:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-16 23:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 2/8] rcu: Clarify usage of cond_resched for tasks-RCU Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 14:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-05-14 17:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 0:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-15 3:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 3/8] rcu: Add back the cpuend tracepoint Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 18:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 0:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 4/8] rcu: Get rid of old c variable from places in tree RCU Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 17:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 0:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 5/8] rcu: Use rcu_node as temporary variable in funnel locking loop Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 18:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 0:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 6/8] rcu: Add back the Startedleaf tracepoint Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 18:38 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-05-15 0:57 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-15 3:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 23:04 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-16 15:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-16 23:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 7/8] rcu: trace CleanupMore condition only if needed Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 19:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 1:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-15 3:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-14 3:15 ` [PATCH RFC 8/8] rcu: Fix cpustart tracepoint gp_seq number Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-05-14 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-15 1:02 ` Joel Fernandes
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=20180514183823.GF26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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).