[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211004131445.GA273854@lothringen>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 15:14:45 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] rcu/nocb: Make rcu_core() callbacks acceleration
(de-)offloading safe
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 06:50:39PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 30/09/21 00:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > When callbacks are offloaded, the NOCB kthreads handle the callbacks
> > progression on behalf of rcu_core().
> >
> > However during the (de-)offloading process, the kthread may not be
> > entirely up to the task. As a result some callbacks grace period
> > sequence number may remain stale for a while because rcu_core() won't
> > take care of them either.
> >
>
> But that should be taken care of at the tail end of the (de)offloading
> process, either by rcu_core() or by the NOCB kthreads, no?
True but the (de-)offloading process can take a random amount of time to
complete. During this time if the queue of callbacks is already huge, things
can explode.
>
> Or is it e.g. in the case of offloading, we want to make sure an rcu_core()
> invocation runs callback acceleration because even if the NOCB GP/CB
> kthreads are being set up, we're not guaranteed is going to do that
> straight away?
Right.
>
> IIUC it would be a similar case for deoffload when we stash the NOCB GP/CB
> kthreads and get rcu_core() running concurrently.
You got it!
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists