Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:50:34 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, len.brown@intel.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
        yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20170710172705.GA3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <c6e62380-4995-f47e-acef-692e3b589862@linux.intel.com>
 <20170711094157.5xcwkloxnjehieqv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170711160926.GA18805@lerouge>
 <20170711163422.etydkhhtgfthpfi5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170711180931.GP2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170712122249.u6y4ymmk6qwvog57@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170712155458.GW2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170712171756.e3fnc3waanbaiiss@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170712175732.hlhzc6g3aa47545d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170712175732.hlhzc6g3aa47545d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20170712185034.GA2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1583
Lines: 32

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:57:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:17:56PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Could be I'm just not remembering how all that works.. But I was
> > wondering if we can do the expensive bits if we've decided to actually
> > go NOHZ and avoid doing it on every idle entry.
> > 
> > IIRC the RCU fast NOHZ bits try and flush the callback list (or paw it
> > off to another CPU?) such that we can go NOHZ sooner. Having a !empty
> > callback list avoid NOHZ from happening.
> > 
> > Now if we've already decided we can't in fact go NOHZ due to other
> > concerns, flushing the callback list is pointless work. So I'm thinking
> > we can find a better place to do this.
> 
> I'm a wee bit confused by the split between rcu_prepare_for_idle() and
> rcu_needs_cpu().
> 
> There's a fair amount overlap there.. that said, I'm thinking we should
> be calling rcu_needs_cpu() as the very last test, not the very first,
> such that we can bail out of tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() without having
> to incur the penalty of flushing callbacks.

Maybe or maybe not, please see my earlier email for more details.

TL;DR:  No, callbacks are no longer flushed.  Yes, there is dependency.
Not hard to make rcu_prepare_for_idle() deal with rcu_needs_cpu() not
having been called, but it does need to happen.  Putting rcu_needs_cpu()
last is not necessarily a good thing.  If CPUs going idle normally
don't have callbacks, it won't help.  So we need hard evidence that
rcu_needs_cpu() is consuming significant time before hacking.

						Thanx, Paul