[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402112219160.21991@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:21:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Too many rescheduling interrupts (still!)
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Just adding Peter for now, as I'm too tired to grok the issue right
now.
> Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
> rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't, although it does seem to have
> improved the situation.
>
> A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
> both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do, essentially:
>
> set_tsk_need_resched(t);
> smb_mb();
> if (!tsk_is_polling(t))
> smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
>
> The problem is that set_tsk_need_resched wakes the CPU and, if the CPU
> is too quick (which isn't surprising if it was in C0 or C1), then it
> could *clear* TS_POLLING before tsk_is_polling is read.
>
> Is there a good reason that TIF_NEED_RESCHED is in thread->flags and
> TS_POLLING is in thread->status? Couldn't both of these be in the
> same field in something like struct rq? That would allow a real
> atomic op here.
>
> The more serious issue is that AFAICS default_wake_function is
> completely missing the polling check. It goes through
> ttwu_queue_remote, which unconditionally sends an interrupt.
>
> --Andy
>
--
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