[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190804144835.GB2386@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:48:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/14] rcu/nohz: Make multi_cpu_stop()
enable tick on all online CPUs
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:43:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:15:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The multi_cpu_stop() function relies on the scheduler to gain control from
> > whatever is running on the various online CPUs, including any nohz_full
> > CPUs running long loops in kernel-mode code. Lack of the scheduler-clock
> > interrupt on such CPUs can delay multi_cpu_stop() for several minutes
> > and can also result in RCU CPU stall warnings. This commit therefore
> > causes multi_cpu_stop() to enable the scheduler-clock interrupt on all
> > online CPUs.
>
> This sounds wrong; should we be fixing sched_can_stop_tick() instead to
> return false when the stop task is runnable?
And even without that; I don't understand how we're not instantly
preempted the moment we enqueue the stop task.
Any enqueue, should go through check_preempt_curr() which will be an
instant resched_curr() when we just woke the stop class.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists