[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140725144458.GY11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:44:58 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] rcu: Use rcu_gp_kthread_wake() to wake up
kthreads
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 01:06:58AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> The rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function checks for three conditions before waking up
> grace period kthreads:
>
> * Is the thread we are trying to wake up the current thread?
> * Are the gp_flags zero? (all threads wait on non-zero gp_flags condition)
> * Is there no thread created for this flavour, hence nothing to wake up?
>
> If any one of these condition is true, we do not call wake_up().
>
> In rcu_report_qs_rsp(), I added a pr_info() call testing if any of the above
> conditions is true, in which case we can avoid calling wake_up(). It turns out
> that quite a few actually are. Most of the cases where we can avoid is condition 2
> above and condition 1 also occurs quite often. Condition 3 never happens.
>
> I could not test the wake_up() in force_quiescent_state() as that is not
> triggered trivially, but I am assuming we can replace wake_up() there too.
>
> Hence this commit tries to avoid calling wake_up() whenever we can by using
> rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function.
This one does sound much more plausible than the earlier one. I have
a few more questions that I will ask in your follow-up message.
> One concern is the comment which states that we need a memory barrier at that
> location which is being implied by the wake_up(). Should we put an smp_mb() and
> just not rely on the barrier provided by wake_up()? Thoughts?
Let's see... The memory barriers are unnecessary for your case 1
and case 3. That leaves your case 2, which is all about ->gp_flags.
It is quite possible that this case is now fully covered by locking,
so that the comment is obsolete. But why don't you check?
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 72e0b1f..d0e0d6e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1938,7 +1938,8 @@ static void rcu_report_qs_rsp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags)
> {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp));
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu_get_root(rsp)->lock, flags);
> - wake_up(&rsp->gp_wq); /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
> + /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
> + rcu_gp_kthread_wake(rsp);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -2516,7 +2517,8 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) =
> ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) | RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS;
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp_old->lock, flags);
> - wake_up(&rsp->gp_wq); /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
> + /* Memory barrier implied by wake_up() path. */
> + rcu_gp_kthread_wake(rsp);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.0.1
>
--
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