[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120831180912.GC4259@jtriplet-mobl1>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:09:12 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/15] rcu: Improve boost selection when
moving tasks to root rcu_node
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
>
> The rcu_preempt_offline_tasks() moves all tasks queued on a given leaf
> rcu_node structure to the root rcu_node, which is done when the last CPU
> corresponding the the leaf rcu_node structure goes offline. Now that
> RCU-preempt's synchronize_rcu_expedited() implementation blocks CPU-hotplug
> operations during the initialization of each rcu_node structure's
> ->boost_tasks pointer, rcu_preempt_offline_tasks() can do a better job
> of setting the root rcu_node's ->boost_tasks pointer.
>
> The key point is that rcu_preempt_offline_tasks() runs as part of the
> CPU-hotplug process, so that a concurrent synchronize_rcu_expedited() is
> guaranteed to either have not started on the one hand (in which case there
> is no boosting on behalf of the expedited grace period) to be completely
Missing word: s/to be/or to be/
> initialized on the other (in which case, in absence of other priority
s/absence/the absence/
> boosting, all ->boost_tasks pointers will be initialized). Therefore,
> if rcu_preempt_offline_tasks() finds that the ->boost_tasks pointer is
> equal to the ->exp_tasks pointer, it can be sure that it is correcty
> placed.
>
> The case where there was boosting ongoing at the time that the
s/The/In the/
> synchronize_rcu_expedited() function started, different nodes might
> start boosting the tasks blocking the expedited grace period at different
> times. In this mixed case, the root node will either be boosting tasks
> for the expedited grace period already, or it will start as soon as it
> gets done boosting for the normal grace period -- but in this latter
> case, the root node's tasks needed to be boosted in any case.
>
> This commit therefore adds a check of the ->boost_tasks pointer against
> the ->exp_tasks pointer to the list that prevents updating ->boost_tasks.
Seems like some hint of this explanation really ought to end up in a
comment somewhere...
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> index b1b4851..c930a47 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> @@ -591,7 +591,8 @@ static int rcu_preempt_offline_tasks(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> /* In case root is being boosted and leaf was not. */
> raw_spin_lock(&rnp_root->lock); /* irqs already disabled */
> if (rnp_root->boost_tasks != NULL &&
> - rnp_root->boost_tasks != rnp_root->gp_tasks)
> + rnp_root->boost_tasks != rnp_root->gp_tasks &&
> + rnp_root->boost_tasks != rnp_root->exp_tasks)
> rnp_root->boost_tasks = rnp_root->gp_tasks;
> raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock); /* irqs still disabled */
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
> --
> 1.7.8
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists