linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] rcu: Directly lock rdp->nocb_lock on nocb code entrypoints
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 15:29:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200526222900.GQ2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200526212756.GF76276@google.com>

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:27:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:09:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > BTW, I'm really itching to give it a try to make the scheduler more deadlock
> > > > > resilient (that is, if the scheduler wake up path detects a deadlock, then it
> > > > > defers the wake up using timers, or irq_work on its own instead of passing
> > > > > the burden of doing so to the callers). Thoughts?
> > > > 
> > > > I have used similar approaches within RCU, but on the other hand the
> > > > scheduler often has tighter latency constraints than RCU does.	So I
> > > > think that is a better question for the scheduler maintainers than it
> > > > is for me.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Ok, it definitely keeps coming up in my radar first with the
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special() stuff, and now the nocb ;-). Perhaps it could also
> > > be good for a conference discussion!
> > 
> > Again, please understand that RCU has way looser latency constraints
> > than the scheduler does.  Adding half a jiffy to wakeup latency might
> > not go over well, especially in the real-time application area.
> 
> Yeah, agreed that the "deadlock detection" code should be pretty light weight
> if/when it is written.

In addition, to even stand a chance, you would need to use hrtimers.
The half-jiffy (at a minimum) delay from any other deferral mechanism
that I know of would be the kiss of death, especially from the viewpoint
of the real-time guys.

> > But what did the scheduler maintainers say about this idea?
> 
> Last I remember when it came up during the rcu_read_unlock_special() deadlock
> discussions, there's no way to know for infra like RCU to know that it was
> invoked from the scheduler.
> 
> The idea I am bringing up now (about the scheduler itself detecting a
> recursion) was never brought up (not yet) with the sched maintainers (at
> least not by me).

It might be good to bounce if off of them sooner rather than later.

							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-26 22:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-13 16:47 [PATCH 00/10] rcu: Allow a CPU to leave and reenter NOCB state Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 01/10] rcu: Directly lock rdp->nocb_lock on nocb code entrypoints Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-20 12:29   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-22 17:57     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-26 15:21       ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-26 16:29         ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-26 20:18           ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-26 21:09             ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-26 21:27               ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-26 22:29                 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-05-27  0:45                   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-27  0:58                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-04 11:41       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-06-04 16:36         ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-08 12:57           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-06-09 18:02             ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-10 13:12               ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-06-10 14:02                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-10 22:12                   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-06-10 23:21                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-11  1:32                       ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 02/10] rcu: Use direct rdp->nocb_lock operations on local calls Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 03/10] rcu: Make locking explicit in do_nocb_deferred_wakeup_common() Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-26 19:54   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-26 19:59   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 04/10] rcu: Implement rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded() config dependent Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 18:20   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-13 23:03     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-14 15:47       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 05/10] rcu: Remove useless conditional nocb unlock Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 06/10] rcu: Make nocb_cb kthread parkable Frederic Weisbecker
2020-06-11  1:34   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 07/10] rcu: Temporarily assume that nohz full CPUs might not be NOCB Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 18:25   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-13 23:08     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-14 15:50       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-14 22:49         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 08/10] rcu: Allow to deactivate nocb on a CPU Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 18:38   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-13 22:45     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-14 15:47       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-14 22:30         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-14 22:47           ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-14 22:55             ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-26 21:20   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-26 22:49     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-04 13:10       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-06-11  1:32         ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-11 17:03           ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-04 13:14     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 09/10] rcu: Allow to re-offload a CPU that used to be nocb Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 18:41   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-13 16:47 ` [PATCH 10/10] rcu: Nocb (de)activate through sysfs Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-13 18:42   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-13 23:23     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-05-14 15:51       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-13 18:15 ` [PATCH 00/10] rcu: Allow a CPU to leave and reenter NOCB state 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=20200526222900.GQ2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --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).