From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1510C43331 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB472070C for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:28:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567783708; bh=LoE0EoyVKL/jh567X/tK9cLn9JQlxKeq4C5bKNPmYuE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID: From; b=Y5p4vdywvXQamVa0Rf7Cfg7xlV9rCWrRR+BMzFFqrUx3ImYJ+0b1tMpEMvA7CVdGn v3AmnEOdHYgNYDhRHCIODBqWU6jtsFENAULyToc4WxS88HvLrNXEeT0+5DuA8dpRiC VhaU2SCrlb43Do+rMlz0N7nPnIe/rsrr7OmN/qBI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392226AbfIFP22 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:28:28 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:55120 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388007AbfIFP22 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:28:28 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x86FCGaJ123307; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:27:46 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uusm1hb15-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 06 Sep 2019 11:27:46 -0400 Received: from m0098414.ppops.net (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x86FCw9B125898; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:27:45 -0400 Received: from ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (ba.79.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.121.186]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uusm1hb0v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 06 Sep 2019 11:27:45 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x86FPsNm025296; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:45 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.28]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2uqgh7b9uu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 06 Sep 2019 15:27:45 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x86FRiGe54591986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:44 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D2DB2065; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7575DB2064; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.154]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81F0D16C0AD6; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 08:27:53 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Bjorn Helgaas , Ingo Molnar , Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , Petr Mladek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , Yafang Shao Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu dev 1/2] Revert b8c17e6664c4 ("rcu: Maintain special bits at bottom of ->dynticks counter") Message-ID: <20190906152753.GA18734@linux.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20190903200249.GD4125@linux.ibm.com> <20190904045910.GC144846@google.com> <20190904101210.GM4125@linux.ibm.com> <20190904135420.GB240514@google.com> <20190904231308.GB4125@linux.ibm.com> <20190905153620.GG26466@google.com> <20190905164329.GT4125@linux.ibm.com> <20190906000137.GA224720@google.com> <20190906150806.GA11355@google.com> <20190906152144.GF4051@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190906152144.GF4051@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-09-06_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909060161 Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 08:21:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:08:06AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:01:37PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > @@ -3004,7 +3007,7 @@ static int rcu_pending(void) > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Is the RCU core waiting for a quiescent state from this CPU? */ > > > > > > - if (rdp->core_needs_qs && !rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm) > > > > > > + if (READ_ONCE(rdp->core_needs_qs) && !rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm) > > > > > > return 1; > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Does this CPU have callbacks ready to invoke? */ > > > > > > @@ -3244,7 +3247,6 @@ int rcutree_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu) > > > > > > rdp->gp_seq = rnp->gp_seq; > > > > > > rdp->gp_seq_needed = rnp->gp_seq; > > > > > > rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm = true; > > > > > > - rdp->core_needs_qs = false; > > > > > > > > > > How about calling the new hint-clearing function here as well? Just for > > > > > robustness and consistency purposes? > > > > > > > > This and the next function are both called during a CPU-hotplug online > > > > operation, so there is little robustness or consistency to be had by > > > > doing it twice. > > > > > > Ok, sorry I missed you are clearing it below in the next function. That's > > > fine with me. > > > > > > This patch looks good to me and I am Ok with merging of these changes into > > > the original patch with my authorship as you mentioned. Or if you wanted to > > > be author, that's fine too :) > > > > Paul, does it make sense to clear these urgency hints in rcu_qs() as well? > > After all, we are clearing atleast one urgency hint there: the > > rcu_read_unlock_special::need_qs bit. > > We certainly don't want to turn off the scheduling-clock interrupt until > after the quiescent state has been reported to the RCU core. And it might > still be useful to have a heavy quiescent state because the grace-period > kthread can detect that. Just in case the CPU that just called rcu_qs() > is slow about actually reporting that quiescent state to the RCU core. Hmmm... Should ->need_qs ever be cleared from FQS to begin with? Thanx, Paul