[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181108181630.nsr3cyjwsch2y2r5@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 19:16:30 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: srcu: use cpu_online() instead custom check
On 2018-11-08 10:05:17 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand, this is the call to queue_delayed_work_on()
> from srcu_queue_delayed_work_on(), right?
correct.
> And if I am guessing correctly, you would like to get rid of the
> constraint requiring CPUHP_RCUTREE_PREP to precede CPUHP_TIMERS_PREPARE?
no, my problem is the preempt_disable() around queue_delayed_work_on().
If the CPUs goes offline _after_ queue_delayed_work_on() then the timer
gets migrated and work item should show up on another CPU.
If the CPU is offline at queue_delayed_work_on() time then the timer
gets enqueued and won't fire until the CPU is back online and I *think*
that is the reason behind this "is CPU online" check.
> If so, the swait_event_idle_timeout_exclusive() in rcu_gp_fqs_loop()
> in kernel/rcu/tree.c also requires this ordering. There are probably
> other pieces of code needing this.
>
> Plus the reason for running this on a specific CPU is that the workqueue
> item is processing that CPU's per-CPU variables, including invoking that
> CPU's callbacks. The item is srcu_invoke_callbacks().
The SRCU callback is invoking per-CPU variables? Like this_cpu_ptr()?
But if the CPU is offline then you fallback to queue_delayed_work()?
> Thanx, Paul
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists