[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170523163853.70773f4a@vmware.local.home>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:38:53 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Use case for TASKS_RCU
On Tue, 23 May 2017 13:00:35 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, it does not work, as I should have known ahead of
> > > time from the dyntick-idle experience. Not all context switches
> > > go through context_switch(). :-/
> >
> > Wait. What context switch doesn't go through a context switch? Or do
> > you mean a user/kernel context switch?
>
> I mean that putting printk() before and after the call to
> context_switch() can show tasks switching out twice without switching
> in and vice versa. No sign of lost printk()s, and I also confirmed
> this behavior using a flag in task_struct.
I hope you meant trace_printk()s' as printk is a huge overhead and can
cause side effects.
>
> One way that this can happen on some architectures is via the "helper"
> mechanism, where the task sleeps normally, but where a later interrupt
> or exception takes on its context "behind the scenes" in the arch
> code. This is what messed up my attempt to use a simple
> interrupt-nesting counter for RCU dynticks some years back. What I
> counted on there was that the idle loop would never do that sort of
> thing, so I could zero the count when entering idle from process
> context.
>
> But I have not yet found a similar trick for counting voluntary
> context switches.
>
> I also tried making context_switch() look like a momentary quiescent
> state, but of course that means that tasks that block forever also
> block the grace period forever. At which point, I need to scan the
> task list to find them. And that pretty much brings me back to the
> current RCU-tasks implementation. :-/
>
Nothing should block in a preempted state forever, and if it does, that
means we want to wait forever. Because it could be preempted on the
trampoline.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists