From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcuperf: Make rcuperf kernel test more robust for !expedited mode
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 12:52:31 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190705035231.GA31088@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190704174044.GK26519@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:40:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:34:30AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > It is possible that the rcuperf kernel test runs concurrently with init
> > starting up. During this time, the system is running all grace periods
> > as expedited. However, rcuperf can also be run for normal GP tests.
> > Right now, it depends on a holdoff time before starting the test to
> > ensure grace periods start later. This works fine with the default
> > holdoff time however it is not robust in situations where init takes
> > greater than the holdoff time to finish running. Or, as in my case:
> >
> > I modified the rcuperf test locally to also run a thread that did
> > preempt disable/enable in a loop. This had the effect of slowing down
> > init. The end result was that the "batches:" counter in rcuperf was 0
> > causing a division by 0 error in the results. This counter was 0 because
> > only expedited GPs seem to happen, not normal ones which led to the
> > rcu_state.gp_seq counter remaining constant across grace periods which
> > unexpectedly happen to be expedited. The system was running expedited
> > RCU all the time because rcu_unexpedited_gp() would not have run yet
> > from init. In other words, the test would concurrently with init
> > booting in expedited GP mode.
> >
> > To fix this properly, let us check if system_state if SYSTEM_RUNNING
> > is set before starting the test. The system_state approximately aligns
Just minor typo..
To fix this properly, let us check if system_state if SYSTEM_RUNNING
is set before starting the test. ...
Should be
To fix this properly, let us check if system_state is set to
SYSTEM_RUNNING before starting the test. ...
Thanks,
Byungchul
> > with when rcu_unexpedited_gp() is called and works well in practice.
> >
> > I also tried late_initcall however it is still too early to be
> > meaningful for this case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
>
> Good catch, queued, thank you!
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > index 4513807cd4c4..5a879d073c1c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > @@ -375,6 +375,14 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg)
> > if (holdoff)
> > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(holdoff * HZ);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Wait until rcu_end_inkernel_boot() is called for normal GP tests
> > + * so that RCU is not always expedited for normal GP tests.
> > + * The system_state test is approximate, but works well in practice.
> > + */
> > + while (!gp_exp && system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)
> > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> > +
> > t = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns();
> > if (atomic_inc_return(&n_rcu_perf_writer_started) >= nrealwriters) {
> > t_rcu_perf_writer_started = t;
> > --
> > 2.22.0.410.gd8fdbe21b5-goog
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-05 3:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-04 4:34 [PATCH] rcuperf: Make rcuperf kernel test more robust for !expedited mode Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-04 17:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-05 3:52 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2019-07-05 12:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-05 15:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-05 20:00 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-13 14:18 ` 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=20190705035231.GA31088@X58A-UD3R \
--to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--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=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--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).