From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for online cpu
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:11:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJhHMCA4Fdd4JbtKdNGABFYRBCqaLukLbydLAFA-3RiZXaTngA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140723142314.GV11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:12:54AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 08:59:06AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:09:46AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> >> >> There are two checks for an online CPU if two if() conditions. This commit
>> >> >> simplies this by replacing it with only one check for the online CPU.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > I admit that it is very early in the morning my time, but I don't see
>> >> > this change as preserving the semantics in all cases. Please recheck
>> >> > your changes to the second check.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanx, Paul
>> >>
>> >> I guess you must be thrown off by the complementary checks, the first
>> >> check is for cpu_online() and second is for cpu_is_offline(). :)
>> >>
>> >> Previously, if a cpu is offline, the first condition is false and the
>> >> second condition is true, so we return from the second if() condition.
>> >> The same semantics are being preserved.
>> >
>> > Fair enough!
>> >
>> > Nevertheless, I am not seeing this as a simplification.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean here, do you mean that both the checks are
>> actually required?
>
> I mean that the current compound tests each mean something. Pulling out
> the offline test adds lines of code and obscures that meaning. This means
> that it is easier (for me, anyway) to see why the current code is correct
> than it is to see why your suggested change is correct.
>
That is a valid point. I did not mean to reduce readability of the
code. Just trying to avoid the overhead of smp_processor_id().
Not sure if you would prefer this, but how about the following?
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index f1ba773..3a26008 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2516,15 +2516,16 @@ static void __call_rcu_core(struct rcu_state
*rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
{
bool needwake;
+ bool awake = cpu_online(smp_processor_id);
/*
* If called from an extended quiescent state, invoke the RCU
* core in order to force a re-evaluation of RCU's idleness.
*/
- if (!rcu_is_watching() && cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
+ if (!rcu_is_watching() && awake)
invoke_rcu_core();
/* If interrupts were disabled or CPU offline, don't invoke RCU core. */
- if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags) || cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()))
+ if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags) || !awake)
return;
/*
>
>> >> --
>> >> Pranith.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 9 ++++++---
>> >> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> >> >> index 5dcbf36..8d598a2 100644
>> >> >> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> >> >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> >> >> @@ -2602,15 +2602,18 @@ static void __call_rcu_core(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
>> >> >> {
>> >> >> bool needwake;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> + if (!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
>> >> >> + return;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> /*
>> >> >> * If called from an extended quiescent state, invoke the RCU
>> >> >> * core in order to force a re-evaluation of RCU's idleness.
>> >> >> */
>> >> >> - if (!rcu_is_watching() && cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
>> >> >> + if (!rcu_is_watching())
>> >> >> invoke_rcu_core();
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - /* If interrupts were disabled or CPU offline, don't invoke RCU core. */
>> >> >> - if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags) || cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()))
>> >> >> + /* If interrupts were disabled, don't invoke RCU core. */
>> >> >> + if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags))
>> >> >> return;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /*
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> 2.0.0.rc2
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Pranith
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pranith
>>
>
--
Pranith
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-23 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-23 5:09 [PATCH 00/16] rcu: Some minor fixes and cleanups Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 01/16] rcu: Use rcu_num_nodes instead of NUM_RCU_NODES Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 02/16] rcu: Check return value for cpumask allocation Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 12:49 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 17:14 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 03/16] rcu: Fix comment for gp_state field values Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 04/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for an online CPU Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 13:23 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 13:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 14:01 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 14:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 15:07 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 15:21 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 05/16] rcu: Add noreturn attribute to boost kthread Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 06/16] rcu: Clear gp_flags only when actually starting new gp Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 07/16] rcu: Save and restore irq flags in rcu_gp_cleanup() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 08/16] rcu: Clean up rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 09/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for online cpu Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 12:59 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 13:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 14:12 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 14:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 15:11 ` Pranith Kumar [this message]
2014-07-23 15:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 15:44 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 19:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 20:01 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 20:16 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 20:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 10/16] rcu: Check for RCU_FLAG_GP_INIT bit in gp_flags for spurious wakeup Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 11/16] rcu: Check for spurious wakeup using return value Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-24 2:36 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-24 3:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-24 4:03 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-24 18:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-24 19:59 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-24 20:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 12/16] rcu: Rename rcu_spawn_gp_kthread() to rcu_spawn_kthreads() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 13/16] rcu: Spawn nocb kthreads from rcu_prepare_kthreads() Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 14/16] rcu: Remove redundant checks for rcu_scheduler_fully_active Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 15/16] rcu: Check for a nocb cpu before trying to spawn nocb threads Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 13:14 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 13:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 5:09 ` [PATCH 16/16] rcu: kvm.sh: Fix error when you pass --cpus argument Pranith Kumar
2014-07-23 12:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-23 14:45 ` [PATCH 00/16] rcu: Some minor fixes and cleanups Paul E. McKenney
2014-08-27 1:10 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-27 3:20 ` 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=CAJhHMCA4Fdd4JbtKdNGABFYRBCqaLukLbydLAFA-3RiZXaTngA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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).