Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:33:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, 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 RFC tip/core/rcu 2/9] rcu: Provide cond_resched_rcu_qs()
 to force quiescent states in long loops
Message-ID: <20140729173318.GW11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20140728225556.GA19493@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1406588180-21933-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1406588180-21933-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20140729075536.GZ19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20140729162236.GP11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20140729172542.GK3935@laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140729172542.GK3935@laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:25:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:22:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:55:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 03:56:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > RCU-tasks requires the occasional voluntary context switch
> > > > from CPU-bound in-kernel tasks.  In some cases, this requires
> > > > instrumenting cond_resched().  However, there is some reluctance
> > > > to countenance unconditionally instrumenting cond_resched() (see
> > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/603252/),
> > > 
> > > No, if its a good reason mention it, if not ignore it.
> > 
> > Fair enough.  ;-)
> > 
> > > > so this commit creates a separate
> > > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() that may be used in place of cond_resched() in
> > > > locations prone to long-duration in-kernel looping.
> > > 
> > > Sounds like a pain and a recipe for mistakes. How is joe kernel hacker
> > > supposed to 1) know about this new api, and 2) decide which to use?
> > > 
> > > Heck, even I wouldn't know, and I just read the damn patch.
> > 
> > When Joe Hacker gets stall warning messages due to loops in the kernel
> > that contain cond_resched(), that is a hint that cond_resched_rcu_qs()
> > is required.  These stall warnings can occur when using RCU-tasks and when
> > using normal RCU in NO_HZ_FULL kernels in cases where the scheduling-clock
> > interrupt is left off while executing a long code path in the kernel.
> > (Of course, in both cases, another eminently reasonable fix is to shorten
> > the offending code path in the kernel.)
> > 
> > I should add words to that effect to Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt,
> > shouldn't I?  Done.
> 
> No, but why can't we make the regular cond_resched() do this?

Well, I got a lot of grief when I tried it a few weeks ago.

But from what I can see, you are the maintainer or cond_resched(), so
if you are good with making the normal cond_resched() do this, I am
more than happy to make it so!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/