[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyCb4HQi_=rqhND0+tr3u_EyXBnY9zFgiHdpE1v00WxGQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:56:31 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [BELATED CORE TOPIC] context tracking / nohz /
RCU state
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> This is a bit late, but here goes anyway.
>
> Having played with the x86 context tracking hooks for awhile, I think
> it would be nice if core code that needs to be aware of CPU context
> (kernel, user, idle, guest, etc) could come up with single,
> comprehensible, easily validated set of hooks that arch code is
> supposed to call.
>
> Currently we have:
>
> - RCU hooks, which come in a wide variety to notify about IRQs, NMIs, etc.
>
> - Context tracking hooks. Only used by some arches. Calling these
> calls the RCU hooks for you in most cases. They have weird
> interactions with interrupts and they're slow.
>
> - vtime. Beats the heck out of me.
>
> - Whatever deferred things Christoph keeps reminding us about.
>
> Honestly, I don't fully understand what all these hooks are supposed
> to do, nor do I care all that much. From my perspective, the code
> code should be able to do whatever it wants and rely on appropriate
> notifications from arch code. It would be great if we could come up
> with something straightforward that covers everything. For example:
>
> user_mode_to_kernel_mode()
> kernel_mode_to_user_mode()
> kernel_mode_to_guest_mode()
> in_a_periodic_tick()
> starting_nmi()
> ending_nmi()
> may_i_turn_off_ticks_right_now()
> or, better yet:
> i_am_turning_off_ticks_right_now_and_register_your_own_darned_hrtimer_if_thats_a_problem()
>
> Some arches may need:
>
> i_am_lame_and_forgot_my_previous_context()
>
> x86 will soon (4.3 or 4.4, depending on how my syscall cleanup goes)
> no longer need that.
>
> Paul says that some arches need something that goes straight from IRQ
> to user mode (?) -- sigh.
>
> etc.
>
> It might make sense to get enough people who understand what's going
> on behind the scenes together to hash out the requirements.
>
I am also interested by the topic. I hope we can find out a common
infrastructure to handle these callbacks. I am interested in
optimizing/simplifying the these callbacks of RCU as well.
Thanks,
Lai
> --Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
--
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