Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754197AbaFMXNf (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:13:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:53089 "EHLO mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753228AbaFMXNd (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:13:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:13:25 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: LKML , Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Only pin GP kthread when full dynticks is actually used Message-ID: <20140613231323.GS6635@localhost.localdomain> References: <1402618619-32630-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20140613012432.GH4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140613013515.GA9589@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140613124714.GC6635@localhost.localdomain> <20140613155233.GM4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140613160002.GL6635@localhost.localdomain> <20140613161630.GQ4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140613162130.GP6635@localhost.localdomain> <20140613204903.GU4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140613204903.GU4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:49:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 06:21:32PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:16:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Is it because we have dynticks CPUs staying too long in the kernel without > > > > taking any quiescent states? Are we perhaps missing some rcu_user_enter() or > > > > things? > > > > > > Sort of the former, but combined with the fact that in-kernel CPUs still > > > need scheduling-clock interrupts for RCU to make progress. I could > > > move this to RCU's context-switch hook, but that could be very bad for > > > workloads that do lots of context switching. > > > > Or I can restart the tick if the CPU stays in the kernel for too long without > > a tick. I think that's what we were doing before but we removed that because > > we never implemented it correctly (we sent scheduler IPI that did nothing...) > > That would work for me! > > Just out of curiosity, what would you use to determine that the CPU > had been in the kernel too long? I'd rather deduce that when grace periods completion go past some delay. I think that's the requirement for calling rcu_kick_nohz_cpu()? -- 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/