From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934067Ab3ECRsG (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 May 2013 13:48:06 -0400 Received: from ja.ssi.bg ([178.16.129.10]:38215 "EHLO ja.ssi.bg" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933812Ab3ECRsE (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 May 2013 13:48:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 20:47:32 +0300 (EEST) From: Julian Anastasov To: "Paul E. McKenney" cc: Peter Zijlstra , Simon Horman , Eric Dumazet , Ingo Molnar , lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso , Dipankar Sarma Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper In-Reply-To: <20130503163045.GE3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20130501155501.GB7521@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130502072623.GE7521@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130502173257.GX3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130502193409.GA3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130502223107.GB3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130503163045.GE3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, 3 May 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > OK, after getting some sleep, I might have located the root cause of > my confusion yesterday. > > The key point is that I don't understand why we cannot get the effect > we are looking for with the following in sched.h (or wherever): > > static inline int cond_resched_rcu(void) > { > #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) || !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) > rcu_read_unlock(); > cond_resched(); > rcu_read_lock(); > #endif > } > > This adds absolutely no overhead in non-debug builds of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, > does the checking in debug builds, and allows voluntary preemption in > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds. CONFIG_PROVE_RCU builds will check for an > (illegal) outer rcu_read_lock() in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds, and you > will get "scheduling while atomic" in response to an outer rcu_read_lock() > in !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds. > > It also seems to me a lot simpler. > > Does this work, or am I still missing something? It should work. It is a better version of the 2nd variant I mentioned here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=136741839021257&w=2 I'll stick to this version, hope Peter Zijlstra agrees. Playing with PREEMPT_ACTIVE or another bit makes the things more complex. To summarize: - CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU: - no empty functions called - CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP can catch errors even for this case - non-CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU: - rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock are barrier(), so it expands just to cond_resched() I'll repeat the tests tomorrow and if there are no problems will post official version after the merge window. Regards -- Julian Anastasov