[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78d798aa-388c-70bc-4227-985ba76c1d7e@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:28:54 +0100
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@...hat.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/osnoise: Force quiescent states while tracing
On 2/28/22 15:14, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> At the moment running osnoise on an isolated CPU and a PREEMPT_RCU
> kernel might have the side effect of extending grace periods too much.
> This will eventually entice RCU to schedule a task on the isolated CPU
> to end the overly extended grace period, adding unwarranted noise to the
> CPU being traced in the process.
>
> So, check if we're the only ones running on this isolated CPU and that
> we're on a PREEMPT_RCU setup. If so, let's force quiescent states in
> between measurements.
>
> Non-PREEMPT_RCU setups don't need to worry about this as osnoise main
> loop's cond_resched() will go though a quiescent state for them.
>
> Note that this same exact problem is what extended quiescent states were
> created for. But adapting them to this specific use-case isn't trivial
> as it'll imply reworking entry/exit and dynticks/context tracking code.
Hey Nicolas,
While testing this patch with rtla osnoise on the 5.17.0-rc6-rt10+, when I hit
^c on osnoise top, the system freezes :-/.
Could you try that on your system?
-- Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists