Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:07:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, 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, joel@joelfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/14] rcu/nohz: Make multi_cpu_stop()
 enable tick on all online CPUs
Message-ID: <20190805080736.GI2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190802151435.GA1081@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190802151501.13069-14-paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190804144317.GF2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190804144835.GB2386@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190804184159.GC28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190804202446.GA25634@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190805041901.GA17621@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190805041901.GA17621@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:19:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 01:24:46PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > For whatever it is worth, the things on my list include using 25 rounds
> > of resched_cpu() on each CPU with ten-jiffy wait between each (instead of
> > merely 10 rounds), using waitqueues or some such to actually force a
> > meaningful context switch on the other CPUs, etc.

That really should not be needed. What are those other CPUs doing?

> Which appears to have reduced the bug rate by about a factor of two.
> (But statistics and all that.)

Which is just weird..

> I am now trying the same test, but with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y and without
> quite so much hammering on the scheduler.  This is keying off Peter's
> earlier mention of preemption.  If this turns out to be solid, perhaps
> we outlaw CONFIG_PREEMPT=n && CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y?

CONFIG_PREEMPT=n should work just fine, _something_ is off.