[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YyLksEr05QTNo05Q@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:39:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: RCU vs NOHZ
Hi,
After watching Joel's talk about RCU and idle ticks I was wondering
about why RCU doesn't have NOHZ hooks -- that is regular NOHZ, not the
NOHZ_FULL stuff.
These deep idle states are only feasible during NOHZ idle, and the NOHZ
path is already relatively expensive (which is offset by then mostly
staying idle for a long while).
Specifically my thinking was that when a CPU goes NOHZ it can splice
it's callback list onto a global list (cmpxchg), and then the
jiffy-updater CPU can look at and consume this global list (xchg).
Before you say... but globals suck (they do), NOHZ already has a fair
amount of global state, and as said before, it's offset by the CPU then
staying idle for a fair while. If there is heavy contention on the NOHZ
data, the idle governor is doing a bad job by selecting deep idle states
whilst we're not actually idle for long.
The above would remove the reason for RCU to inhibit NOHZ.
Additionally; when the very last CPU goes idle (I think we know this
somewhere, but I can't reaily remember where) we can insta-advance the
QS machinery and run the callbacks before going (NOHZ) idle.
Is there a reason this couldn't work? To me this seems like a much
simpler solution than the whole rcu-cb thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists