From: Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, shemminger@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org,
torvalds@osdl.org, rusty@au1.ibm.com, tgall@us.ibm.com,
jim.houston@comcast.net, manfred@colorfullife.com, gh@us.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Real-Time Preemption and RCU
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:48:52 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.05.10503181336310.2466-100000@da410.phys.au.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050318113053.GA18905@elte.hu>
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > [...] How about something like:
> >
> > void
> > rcu_read_lock(void)
> > {
> > preempt_disable();
> > if (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++ == 0) {
> > current->rcu_read_lock_ptr =
> > &__get_cpu_var(rcu_data).lock;
> > preempt_enable();
> > read_lock(current->rcu_read_lock_ptr);
> > } else
> > preempt_enable();
> > }
> >
> > this would still make it 'statistically scalable' - but is it correct?
>
> thinking some more about it, i believe it's correct, because it picks
> one particular CPU's lock and correctly releases that lock.
>
> (read_unlock() is atomic even on PREEMPT_RT, so rcu_read_unlock() is
> fine.)
>
Why can should there only be one RCU-reader per CPU at each given
instance? Even on a real-time UP system it would be very helpfull to have
RCU areas to be enterable by several tasks as once. It would perform
better, both wrt. latencies and throughput:
With the above implementation an high priority task entering an RCU area
will have to boost the current RCU reader, make a task switch until that
one finishes and makes yet another task switch. to get back to the high
priority task. With an RCU implementation which can take n RCU readers per CPU
there is no such problem.
Also having all tasks serializing on one lock (per CPU) really destroys
the real-time properties: The latency of anything which uses RCU will be
the worst latency of anything done under the RCU lock.
When I looked briefly at it in the fall the following solution jumped into
mind: Have a RCU-reader count, rcu_read_count, for each CPU. When you
enter an RCU read region increment it and decrement it when you go out of
it. When it is 0, RCU cleanups are allowed - a perfect quiescent state. At
that point call rcu_qsctr_inc() at that point. Or call it in schedule() as
now just with a if(rcu_read_count==0) around it.
I don't think I understand the current code. But if it works now with
preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() around all the read-regions it ought to
work with
preempt_enable();
rcu_read_count++/--;
preempt_disable()
around the same regions and the above check for rcu_read_count==0 in or
around rcu_qsctr_inc() as well.
It might take a long time before the rcu-batches are actually called,
though, but that is a different story, which can be improved upon. An
improvemnt would be to boost the none-RT tasks entering a rcu-read region
into the lowest RT-priority. That way there can't be a lot of low
priority tasks hanging around making rcu_read_count non-zero for a long
period of time since these tasks only can be preempted by RT tasks while
in the RCU-region.
> Ingo
Esben
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-18 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-18 0:20 Real-Time Preemption and RCU Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 7:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 16:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 17:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 17:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 20:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 22:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-19 0:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 8:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 9:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 9:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 9:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 9:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 15:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-19 5:03 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-19 16:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-20 6:36 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-20 9:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-03-20 16:57 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-03-20 21:38 ` Bill Huey
2005-03-20 21:59 ` Bill Huey
2005-03-18 10:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 11:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 16:48 ` Esben Nielsen [this message]
2005-03-18 17:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-20 13:29 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-20 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-20 23:23 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-22 5:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-22 8:55 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-22 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-22 10:19 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-23 5:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-23 11:44 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-24 7:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-22 10:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-22 11:39 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-22 13:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-22 15:08 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-18 15:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 11:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 12:56 ` Bill Huey
2005-03-18 13:17 ` Bill Huey
2005-03-18 15:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 16:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 16:55 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-22 10:04 ` Bill Huey
2005-03-22 10:17 ` Bill Huey
2005-03-22 10:34 ` Bill Huey
2005-03-22 10:38 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-03-18 22:26 ` Herbert Xu
2005-03-19 16:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-20 8:01 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-03-22 8:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-18 15:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-03-18 15:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-11 22:57 real-time preemption " James Huang
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=Pine.OSF.4.05.10503181336310.2466-100000@da410.phys.au.dk \
--to=simlo@phys.au.dk \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=gh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jim.houston@comcast.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=rusty@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
--cc=tgall@us.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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).