Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752846Ab3JDQu4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:50:56 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:51334 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751192Ab3JDQuz (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:50:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:50:44 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, peter@hurleysoftware.com Subject: Re: tty^Wrcu/perf lockdep trace. Message-ID: <20131004165044.GV28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20131003190830.GA18672@redhat.com> <20131003194226.GO28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131003195832.GU5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131004065835.GP28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131004160352.GF5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131004160352.GF5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1468 Lines: 34 On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:03:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > The problem exists, but NOCB made it much more probable. With non-NOCB > kernels, an irq-disabled call_rcu() invocation does a wake_up() only if > there are more than 10,000 callbacks stacked up on the CPU. With a NOCB > kernel, the wake_up() happens on the first callback. Oh I see.. so I was hoping this was some NOCB crackbrained damage we could still 'fix'. And that wakeup is because we moved grace-period advancing into kthreads, right? > I am not too happy about the complexity of deferring, but maybe it is > the right approach, at least assuming perf isn't going to whack me > with a timer lock. ;-) I'm not too thrilled about trying to move the call_rcu() usage either. > Any other approaches that I am missing? Probably; so the regular no-NOCB would be easy to work around by providing me a call_rcu variant that never does the wakeup. NOCB might be a little more difficult; depending on the reason why it needs to do this wakeup on every single invocation; that seems particularly expensive. Man, RCU was so much easier when all it was was a strict per-cpu state with timer-interrupt driven state machine; non of all this nonsense. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/