[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211013032832.GQ880162@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 20:28:32 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@....com>,
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 00/11] rcu: Make rcu_core() safe in PREEMPT_RT with NOCB
+ a few other fixes v2
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 05:32:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 04:51:29PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > No code change in this v2, only changelogs:
> >
> > * Add tags from Valentin and Sebastian
> >
> > * Remove last reference to SEGCBLIST_SOFTIRQ_ONLY (thanks Valentin)
> >
> > * Rewrite changelog for "rcu/nocb: Check a stable offloaded state to manipulate qlen_last_fqs_check"
> > after off-list debates with Paul.
> >
> > * Remove the scenario with softirq interrupting rcuc on
> > "rcu/nocb: Limit number of softirq callbacks only on softirq" as it's
> > probably not possible (thanks Valentin).
> >
> > * Remove the scenario with task spent scheduling out accounted on tlimit
> > as it's not possible (thanks Valentin)
> > (see "rcu: Apply callbacks processing time limit only on softirq")
> >
> > * Fixed changelog of
> > "rcu/nocb: Don't invoke local rcu core on callback overload from nocb kthread"
> > (thanks Sebastian).
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git
> > rcu/rt-v2
> >
> > HEAD: 2c9349986d5f70a555195139665841cd98e9aba4
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frederic
>
> Nice!
>
> I queued these for further review and testing. I reworked the commit log
> of 6/11 to give my idea of the reason, though I freely admit that this
> reason is not as compelling as it no doubt seemed when I wrote that code.
But in initial tests TREE04.5, TREE04.6, and TREE04.9 all hit the
WARN_ON(1) in rcu_torture_barrier(), which indicates rcu_barrier()
breakage. My best (but not so good) guess is a five-hour MTBF on a
dual-socket system.
I started an automated "git bisect" with each step running 100 hours
of TREE04, but I would be surprised if anything useful comes of it.
Pleased, mind you, but surprised.
Thanx, Paul
> > ---
> >
> > Frederic Weisbecker (10):
> > rcu/nocb: Make local rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave() safe against concurrent deoffloading
> > rcu/nocb: Prepare state machine for a new step
> > rcu/nocb: Invoke rcu_core() at the start of deoffloading
> > rcu/nocb: Make rcu_core() callbacks acceleration (de-)offloading safe
> > rcu/nocb: Check a stable offloaded state to manipulate qlen_last_fqs_check
> > rcu/nocb: Use appropriate rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave()
> > rcu/nocb: Limit number of softirq callbacks only on softirq
> > rcu: Fix callbacks processing time limit retaining cond_resched()
> > rcu: Apply callbacks processing time limit only on softirq
> > rcu/nocb: Don't invoke local rcu core on callback overload from nocb kthread
> >
> > Thomas Gleixner (1):
> > rcu/nocb: Make rcu_core() callbacks acceleration preempt-safe
> >
> >
> > include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h | 51 ++++++++++++++++++-------
> > kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c | 10 ++---
> > kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h | 12 +++---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > kernel/rcu/tree.h | 16 +++++---
> > kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 29 ++++++++++++---
> > 6 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists