[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141029143439.GN5718@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove redundant rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle()
function
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:45:19PM +0000, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:47:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:07:07PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > Function rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() is called from scheduling-
> > > clock interrupt handler to check if the current CPU was interrupted
> > > from idle. If true, it results in invocation of RCU callbacks. But
> > > the common hardware interrupt exit path also contains similar check
> > > and therefore the call to rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() is redundant.
> >
> > By common hardware interrupt exit path, you are meaning the calls
> > to rcu_irq_exit()? If not, please let me know exactly what you
> > mean here.
>
> Yes, I mean rcu_irq_exit().
Unless you can get the indication of whether or not the original interrupt
came from userspace execution into rcu_irq_exit(), this will not work.
It will result in grace-period hangs on some configurations.
Now, if you -can- get the userspace-execution indication into
rcu_irq_exit(), this might be of interest. However, it might be faster
to simply let the scheduling-clock interrupt do the job as it currently
does, especially for workloads with lots of interrupts.
Or did you have something else in mind?
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