[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181018215035.5e8ff553@vmware.local.home>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:50:35 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] doc: rcu: remove obsolete (non-)requirement about
disabling preemption
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:26:45 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> Yes, local_irq_restore is light weight, and does not check for reschedules.
>
> I was thinking of case where ksoftirqd is woken up, but does not run unless
> we set the NEED_RESCHED flag. But that should get set anyway since probably
> ksoftirqd is of high enough priority than the currently running task..
>
> Roughly speaking the scenario could be something like:
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> <-- IPI comes in for the expedited GP, sets exp_hint
> local_irq_disable();
> // do a bunch of stuff
> rcu_read_unlock(); <-- This calls the rcu_read_unlock_special which raises
> the soft irq, and wakesup softirqd.
If softirqd is of higher priority than the current running task, then
the try_to_wake_up() will set NEED_RESCHED of the current task here.
-- Steve
> local_irq_enable();
>
> // Now ksoftirqd is ready to run but we don't switch into the
> // scheduler for sometime because tif_need_resched() returns false and
> // any cond_resched calls do nothing. So we potentially spend lots of
> // time before the next scheduling event.
>
> You think this should not be an issue?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists