Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966914AbbBDQnx (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:43:53 -0500 Received: from mailout1.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.11]:36220 "EHLO mailout1.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161242AbbBDQns (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:43:48 -0500 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-b7f126d000001e9a-f2-54d24bb06d10 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Message-id: <1423068224.24415.15.camel@AMDC1943> Subject: Re: [rcu] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Fengguang Wu , LKP , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Arnd Bergmann , MarkRutland Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:43:44 +0100 In-reply-to: <20150204162814.GG5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1422957702.17540.1.camel@AMDC1943> <20150203162704.GR19109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1423049947.19547.6.camel@AMDC1943> <20150204130018.GG8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20150204131420.GC5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1423059387.24415.2.camel@AMDC1943> <20150204151028.GD5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1423063348.24415.10.camel@AMDC1943> <20150204155615.GF5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1423066256.24415.13.camel@AMDC1943> <20150204162814.GG5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xa7obvC+FGMyfqmTxd9IxdouNM9az Wrx/vp7ZYtPja6wWl3fNYbO4fZnXYuXxdlaLpdcvMlm83fyd1YHT4/5edo8189YwerQ097B5 /P41idFj8Z6XTB4PDm1m8di8pN6jb8sqRo/Pm+QCOKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MvYtaGQsaOGp uH1jBVsD4wzOLkZODgkBE4n7h24yQthiEhfurWfrYuTiEBJYyiixuuEhC0iCV0BQ4sfke0A2 BwezgLzEkUvZIGFmAXWJSfMWMUPUf2aU+PCvhxWi3kCiZWozE4gtLGAksfLdVDCbTcBYYvPy JWwgc0QE5CTWTEwC6WUW2MokseH6LjaQGhYBVYkbF56C1XMKmEvMfgoyE2TBDWaJqwuesYM0 SwgoSzT2u01gFJiF5LxZCOfNQnLeAkbmVYyiqaXJBcVJ6bmGesWJucWleel6yfm5mxghkfFl B+PiY1aHGAU4GJV4eBvaLoYIsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuHt8LoUIsSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIiR iYNTqoGR0+Axm6rVu6odlVO4clXvTVu1YOWpgA+NM0J5Us5veVASEzMleMOGyQKbz7cfPnVn ibOTeaTb2mcZ5QadNx8eulIorJ2o2t3/bM2RE/Ezjpx2mzvj55fmiymH+ZbzL85Y9Wuh5uc/ Yl+X2S/MMKiWKC1z/SfZGfB1vds9Xcl3sUcclYu4Xp/iUGIpzkg01GIuKk4EAMwslJVqAgAA Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1746 Lines: 44 On śro, 2015-02-04 at 08:28 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:10:56PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On śro, 2015-02-04 at 07:56 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:22:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually the timeout versions but I think that doesn't matter. > > > > The wait_on_bit will busy-loop with testing for the bit. Inside the loop > > > > it calls the 'action' which in my case will be bit_wait_io_timeout(). > > > > This calls schedule_timeout(). > > > > > > Ah, good point. > > > > > > > See proof of concept in attachment. One observed issue: hot unplug from > > > > commandline takes a lot more time. About 7 seconds instead of ~0.5. > > > > Probably I did something wrong. > > > > > > Well, you do set the timeout to five seconds, and so if the condition > > > does not get set before the surviving CPU finds its way to the > > > out_of_line_wait_on_bit_timeout(), you are guaranteed to wait for at > > > least five seconds. > > > > > > One alternative approach would be to have a loop around a series of > > > shorter waits. Other thoughts? > > > > Right! That was the issue. It seems it works. I'll think also on > > self-adapting interval as you said below. I'll test it more and send a > > patch. > > Sounds good! > > Are you doing ARM, ARM64, or both? I of course vote for both. ;-) I'll do both but first I need to find who has ARM64 board in my team. Best regards, Krzysztof -- 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/