[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130812151618.GR29406@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:16:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] rcu: eliminate deadlock for rcu read site
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 03:55:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:31:27PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On 08/09/2013 04:40 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > One problem here -- it may take quite some time for a set_need_resched()
> > > to take effect. This is especially a problem for RCU priority boosting,
> > > but can also needlessly delay preemptible-RCU grace periods because
> > > local_irq_restore() and friends don't check the TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit.
> >
> >
> > The final effect of deboosting(rt_mutex_unlock()) is also accomplished
> > via set_need_resched()/set_tsk_need_resched().
> > set_need_resched() is enough for RCU priority boosting issue here.
>
> But there's a huge difference between the boosting and deboosting side
> of things. rcu_read_unlock_special() starts the boost, the deboosting
> only matters if/when you reschedule.
Or if there is a pre-existing runnable task whose priority is such that
deboosting makes it the highest-priority task.
Thanx, Paul
--
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