Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:15:34 -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, jiangshanlai@gmail.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, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        bobby.prani@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/40] rcu: Maintain special bits at bottom
 of ->dynticks counter
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20170412174003.GA23207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1492018825-25634-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170413092044.ur7nzbzst3jdlepx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170413092044.ur7nzbzst3jdlepx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20170413161534.GB3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1939
Lines: 35

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:20:44AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:39:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Currently, IPIs are used to force other CPUs to invalidate their TLBs
> > in response to a kernel virtual-memory mapping change.  This works, but
> > degrades both battery lifetime (for idle CPUs) and real-time response
> > (for nohz_full CPUs), and in addition results in unnecessary IPIs due to
> > the fact that CPUs executing in usermode are unaffected by stale kernel
> > mappings.  It would be better to cause a CPU executing in usermode to
> > wait until it is entering kernel mode to do the flush, first to avoid
> > interrupting usemode tasks and second to handle multiple flush requests
> > with a single flush in the case of a long-running user task.
> > 
> > This commit therefore reserves a bit at the bottom of the ->dynticks
> > counter, which is checked upon exit from extended quiescent states.
> > If it is set, it is cleared and then a new rcu_eqs_special_exit() macro is
> > invoked, which, if not supplied, is an empty single-pass do-while loop.
> > If this bottom bit is set on -entry- to an extended quiescent state,
> > then a WARN_ON_ONCE() triggers.
> > 
> > This bottom bit may be set using a new rcu_eqs_special_set() function,
> > which returns true if the bit was set, or false if the CPU turned
> > out to not be in an extended quiescent state.  Please note that this
> > function refuses to set the bit for a non-nohz_full CPU when that CPU
> > is executing in usermode because usermode execution is tracked by RCU
> > as a dyntick-idle extended quiescent state only for nohz_full CPUs.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
> 
> Isn't that more a: Requested-by ?

I am not too worried about the distinction.  Request a feature, report
the lack of a needed feature, or report a bug, but either way I had to
write the code.  ;-)

								Thanx, Paul