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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200312181618.GA21271@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200312181702.8443-9-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20200316194754.GA172196@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200316194754.GA172196@google.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:17:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YREzQ8hMP_vGiQFiNAtwxPn_C0TG6mH68QaS8cES-Jr3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/16] rcu-tasks: Add an RCU-tasks rude variant
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@fb.com," <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        dipankar <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:47 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:16:55AM -0700, paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
> >
> > This commit adds a "rude" variant of RCU-tasks that has as quiescent
> > states schedule(), cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs(), userspace execution,
> > and (in theory, anyway) cond_resched().  Updates make use of IPIs and
> > force an IPI and a context switch on each online CPU.  This variant
> > is useful in some situations in tracing.
>
> Would it be possible to better clarify that the "rude version" works only
> from preempt-disabled regions? Is that also true for the "non-rude" version?
>
> Also it would be good to clarify better in cover letter, how these new
> flavors relate to the existing Tasks-RCU implementation.
>
> In the existing one, a quiescent state is a task updating its context switch
> counters such that it went to sleep at least once, implying there is no
> chance it is on an about to be destroyed trampoline.
>
> However, here we are trying to determine if a task state is no longer on an
> RQ (which I gleaned from the first patch). Sounds very similar, would the
> context switch counters not help in that determination as well? If it is Ok,
> it would be good to describe in cover letter about what is exactly is a
> quiescent state and what exactly is a reader section in the cover letter, for
> both non-rude and rude version. Thanks!

Just curious, why is the "rude" version better than SRCU? Seems the
schedule_on_each_cpu() would be much slower than SRCU especially if
there are 1000s of CPUs involved. Is there any reason that is a better
alternative?

thanks,

 - Joel