RCU Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
@ 2020-06-21 18:37 Neeraj Upadhyay
  2020-06-21 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
  2020-06-23 15:42 ` Joel Fernandes
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Neeraj Upadhyay @ 2020-06-21 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paulmck, josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, joel
  Cc: rcu, linux-kernel, Neeraj Upadhyay

On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.

Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
 			break;
 		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
 		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
-		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
+		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
 			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
 					       TPS("fqsstart"));
 			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-21 18:37 [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload Neeraj Upadhyay
@ 2020-06-21 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
  2020-06-21 20:00   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
  2020-06-23 15:42 ` Joel Fernandes
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2020-06-21 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Neeraj Upadhyay
  Cc: josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, joel, rcu, linux-kernel

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
> for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
> RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>

Good catch!

But what did you do to verify that this change does the right thing?

						Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
>  			break;
>  		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
>  		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
> -		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
> +		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
>  			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
>  					       TPS("fqsstart"));
>  			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
> -- 
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-21 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2020-06-21 20:00   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
  2020-06-22  3:13     ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Neeraj Upadhyay @ 2020-06-21 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paulmck
  Cc: josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, joel, rcu, linux-kernel

Hi Paul,

On 6/22/2020 1:20 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
>> for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
>> RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> 
> Good catch!
> 
> But what did you do to verify that this change does the right thing?
> 
> 						Thanx, Paul
> 

I haven't done a runtime verification of this code path; I posted this, 
based on review of this code.


Thanks
Neeraj

>> ---
>>   kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
>>   			break;
>>   		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
>>   		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
>> -		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
>> +		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
>>   			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
>>   					       TPS("fqsstart"));
>>   			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
>> -- 
>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>>

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-21 20:00   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
@ 2020-06-22  3:13     ` Paul E. McKenney
  2020-06-22  3:46       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2020-06-22  3:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Neeraj Upadhyay
  Cc: josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, joel, rcu, linux-kernel

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:30:31AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On 6/22/2020 1:20 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
> > > for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
> > > RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> > 
> > Good catch!
> > 
> > But what did you do to verify that this change does the right thing?
> > 
> > 						Thanx, Paul
> > 
> 
> I haven't done a runtime verification of this code path; I posted this,
> based on review of this code.

My concern is that under overload, the FQS scans would happen continuously
rather than accelerating only the first such scan in a given grace period.
This would of course result in a CPU-bound grace-period kthread, which
users might not be all that happy with.

Or am I missing something subtle that prevents this?

But yes, it does look like the current mainline code fails to do the
first scan immediately, so again, good catch!

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks
> Neeraj
> 
> > > ---
> > >   kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
> > >   			break;
> > >   		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
> > >   		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
> > > -		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
> > > +		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
> > >   			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
> > >   					       TPS("fqsstart"));
> > >   			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
> > > -- 
> > > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> > > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> > > 
> 
> -- 
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of
> the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-22  3:13     ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2020-06-22  3:46       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
  2020-06-22 22:53         ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Neeraj Upadhyay @ 2020-06-22  3:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paulmck
  Cc: josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, joel, rcu, linux-kernel

Hi Paul,

On 6/22/2020 8:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:30:31AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On 6/22/2020 1:20 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>>>> On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
>>>> for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
>>>> RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
>>>
>>> Good catch!
>>>
>>> But what did you do to verify that this change does the right thing?
>>>
>>> 						Thanx, Paul
>>>
>>
>> I haven't done a runtime verification of this code path; I posted this,
>> based on review of this code.
> 
> My concern is that under overload, the FQS scans would happen continuously
> rather than accelerating only the first such scan in a given grace period.
> This would of course result in a CPU-bound grace-period kthread, which
> users might not be all that happy with.
> 
> Or am I missing something subtle that prevents this?

Looks like under overload, only the first and second scans are accelerated?

     gf = 0;
     if (first_gp_fqs) {
          first_gp_fqs = false;
           gf = rcu_state.cbovld ? RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD : 0;
     }


Thanks
Neeraj

> 
> But yes, it does look like the current mainline code fails to do the
> first scan immediately, so again, good catch!
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
>

>> Thanks
>> Neeraj
>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>>> index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>>> @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
>>>>    			break;
>>>>    		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
>>>>    		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
>>>> -		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
>>>> +		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
>>>>    			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
>>>>    					       TPS("fqsstart"));
>>>>    			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
>>>> -- 
>>>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>>>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of
>> the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-22  3:46       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
@ 2020-06-22 22:53         ` Paul E. McKenney
  2020-06-23  6:19           ` Neeraj Upadhyay
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2020-06-22 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Neeraj Upadhyay
  Cc: josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, joel, rcu, linux-kernel

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:16:24AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On 6/22/2020 8:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:30:31AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > On 6/22/2020 1:20 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > > > On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
> > > > > for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
> > > > > RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> > > > 
> > > > Good catch!
> > > > 
> > > > But what did you do to verify that this change does the right thing?
> > > > 
> > > > 						Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I haven't done a runtime verification of this code path; I posted this,
> > > based on review of this code.
> > 
> > My concern is that under overload, the FQS scans would happen continuously
> > rather than accelerating only the first such scan in a given grace period.
> > This would of course result in a CPU-bound grace-period kthread, which
> > users might not be all that happy with.
> > 
> > Or am I missing something subtle that prevents this?
> 
> Looks like under overload, only the first and second scans are accelerated?
> 
>     gf = 0;
>     if (first_gp_fqs) {
>          first_gp_fqs = false;
>           gf = rcu_state.cbovld ? RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD : 0;
>     }

Very good, it does sound like you understand this, and it matches my
analysis and passes light testing, so I queued this one.  I did improve
the commit log, please check below.  The added detail is helpful to people
(including ourselves, by the way) who might need to look at this commit
some time in the future.

If you have an x86 system lying around, running rcutorture is quite
straightforward.  Non-x86 systems can also run rcutorture, if nothing
else by using modprobe and rmmod as described here:

https://paulmck.livejournal.com/57769.html

The scripting described in the latter part of this document has worked
on ARMv8 and PowerPC, and might still work for all I know.

						Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

commit 9482524d7dd0aea5d32a6efa2979223eea07c029
Author: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon Jun 22 00:07:27 2020 +0530

    rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
    
    On callback overload, it is necessary to quickly detect idle CPUs,
    and rcu_gp_fqs_check_wake() checks for this condition.  Unfortunately,
    the code following the call to this function does not repeat this check,
    which means that in reality no actual quiescent-state forcing, instead
    only a couple of quick and pointless wakeups at the beginning of the
    grace period.
    
    This commit therefore adds a check for the RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag in
    the post-wakeup "if" statement in rcu_gp_fqs_loop().
    
    Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
 			break;
 		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
 		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
-		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
+		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
 			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
 					       TPS("fqsstart"));
 			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-22 22:53         ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2020-06-23  6:19           ` Neeraj Upadhyay
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Neeraj Upadhyay @ 2020-06-23  6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paulmck
  Cc: josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, joel, rcu, linux-kernel

Hi Paul,

On 6/23/2020 4:23 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:16:24AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On 6/22/2020 8:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:30:31AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2020 1:20 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>>>>>> On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
>>>>>> for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
>>>>>> RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good catch!
>>>>>
>>>>> But what did you do to verify that this change does the right thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> 						Thanx, Paul
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't done a runtime verification of this code path; I posted this,
>>>> based on review of this code.
>>>
>>> My concern is that under overload, the FQS scans would happen continuously
>>> rather than accelerating only the first such scan in a given grace period.
>>> This would of course result in a CPU-bound grace-period kthread, which
>>> users might not be all that happy with.
>>>
>>> Or am I missing something subtle that prevents this?
>>
>> Looks like under overload, only the first and second scans are accelerated?
>>
>>      gf = 0;
>>      if (first_gp_fqs) {
>>           first_gp_fqs = false;
>>            gf = rcu_state.cbovld ? RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD : 0;
>>      }
> 
> Very good, it does sound like you understand this, and it matches my
> analysis and passes light testing, so I queued this one.  I did improve
> the commit log, please check below.  The added detail is helpful to people
> (including ourselves, by the way) who might need to look at this commit
> some time in the future.
> 

Thanks; patch looks good; I will try to put more efforts on commit log
for future patches.

> If you have an x86 system lying around, running rcutorture is quite
> straightforward.  Non-x86 systems can also run rcutorture, if nothing
> else by using modprobe and rmmod as described here:
> 
> https://paulmck.livejournal.com/57769.html
> 
> The scripting described in the latter part of this document has worked
> on ARMv8 and PowerPC, and might still work for all I know.

I will set it up at my end; the livejournal is pretty detailed! Thanks
for sharing this!


Thanks
Neeraj

> 
> 						Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> commit 9482524d7dd0aea5d32a6efa2979223eea07c029
> Author: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> Date:   Mon Jun 22 00:07:27 2020 +0530
> 
>      rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
>      
>      On callback overload, it is necessary to quickly detect idle CPUs,
>      and rcu_gp_fqs_check_wake() checks for this condition.  Unfortunately,
>      the code following the call to this function does not repeat this check,
>      which means that in reality no actual quiescent-state forcing, instead
>      only a couple of quick and pointless wakeups at the beginning of the
>      grace period.
>      
>      This commit therefore adds a check for the RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag in
>      the post-wakeup "if" statement in rcu_gp_fqs_loop().
>      
>      Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
>      Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
>   			break;
>   		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
>   		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
> -		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
> +		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
>   			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
>   					       TPS("fqsstart"));
>   			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
> 

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-21 18:37 [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload Neeraj Upadhyay
  2020-06-21 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2020-06-23 15:42 ` Joel Fernandes
  2020-06-23 16:29   ` Paul E. McKenney
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joel Fernandes @ 2020-06-23 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Neeraj Upadhyay
  Cc: paulmck, josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai, rcu,
	linux-kernel

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
> for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
> RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

And I think needs fixes tag:
Fixes: 1fca4d12f4637 ("rcu: Expedite first two FQS scans under callback-overload conditions")

thanks,

 - Joel


>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
>  			break;
>  		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
>  		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
> -		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
> +		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
>  			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
>  					       TPS("fqsstart"));
>  			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
> -- 
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload
  2020-06-23 15:42 ` Joel Fernandes
@ 2020-06-23 16:29   ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2020-06-23 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joel Fernandes
  Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay, josh, rostedt, mathieu.desnoyers, jiangshanlai,
	rcu, linux-kernel

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:42:14AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:07:27AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > On callback overload, we want to force quiescent state immediately,
> > for the first and second fqs. Enforce the same, by including
> > RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD flag, in fqsstart check.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> 
> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> 
> And I think needs fixes tag:
> Fixes: 1fca4d12f4637 ("rcu: Expedite first two FQS scans under callback-overload conditions")

Excellent, both applied, thank you!

					Thanx, Paul

> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> 
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index d0988a1..6226bfb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
> >  			break;
> >  		/* If time for quiescent-state forcing, do it. */
> >  		if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
> > -		    (gf & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS)) {
> > +		    (gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
> >  			trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
> >  					       TPS("fqsstart"));
> >  			rcu_gp_fqs(first_gp_fqs);
> > -- 
> > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> > 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-06-21 18:37 [PATCH] rcu/tree: Force quiescent state on callback overload Neeraj Upadhyay
2020-06-21 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-21 20:00   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2020-06-22  3:13     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-22  3:46       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2020-06-22 22:53         ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-23  6:19           ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2020-06-23 15:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-23 16:29   ` Paul E. McKenney

RCU Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/0 rcu/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 rcu rcu/ https://lore.kernel.org/rcu \
		rcu@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index rcu

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.rcu


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git