Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932310AbaGSRUL (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:20:11 -0400 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]:55204 "EHLO relay6-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752804AbaGSRUI (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:20:08 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 50.43.32.211 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:19:54 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu] Do not keep timekeeping CPU tick running for non-nohz_full= CPUs Message-ID: <20140719171954.GA610@thin> References: <20140719165350.GA18411@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140719165350.GA18411@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > If a non-nohz_full= CPU is non-idle, it will have a scheduling-clock > interrupt, and therefore doesn't need the timekeeping CPU to keep > its scheduling-clock interrupt going. This commit therefore ignores > the idle state of non-nohz_full CPUs when determining whether or not > the timekeeping CPU can safely turn off its scheduling-clock interrupt. > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > index ddad959a9132..eaa32e4c228d 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > @@ -2789,8 +2789,13 @@ static void rcu_sysidle_exit(struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp, int irq) > * system-idle state. This means that the timekeeping CPU must > * invoke rcu_sysidle_force_exit() directly if it does anything > * more than take a scheduling-clock interrupt. > + * > + * In addition if we are not a nohz_full= CPU, then when we are > + * non-idle we have our own tick, so we don't need the timekeeping > + * CPU to keep a tick on our behalf. We assume that the timekeeping > + * CPU is also a nohz_full= CPU. > */ > - if (smp_processor_id() == tick_do_timer_cpu) > + if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(smp_processor_id())) > return; > > /* Update system-idle state: We are clearly no longer fully idle! */ > @@ -2810,11 +2815,11 @@ static void rcu_sysidle_check_cpu(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool *isidle, > > /* > * If some other CPU has already reported non-idle, if this is > - * not the flavor of RCU that tracks sysidle state, or if this > - * is an offline or the timekeeping CPU, nothing to do. > + * not the flavor of RCU that tracks sysidle state, or if this is > + * an offline or !nohz_full= or the timekeeping CPU, nothing to do. > */ > if (!*isidle || rdp->rsp != rcu_sysidle_state || > - cpu_is_offline(rdp->cpu) || rdp->cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu) > + cpu_is_offline(rdp->cpu) || !tick_nohz_full_cpu(rdp->cpu)) > return; > if (rcu_gp_in_progress(rdp->rsp)) > WARN_ON_ONCE(smp_processor_id() != tick_do_timer_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/