Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6bd3b0083427c6cf1c860a021e097af9052cdd75.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/osnoise: Force quiescent states while tracing
From:   Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     bristot@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com
Date:   Tue, 01 Mar 2022 11:59:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20220228104523.01eda61a@gandalf.local.home>
References: <20220228141423.259691-1-nsaenzju@redhat.com>
         <20220228104523.01eda61a@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-1.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 10:45 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:14:23 +0100
> Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > @@ -1386,6 +1389,22 @@ static int run_osnoise(void)
> >  					osnoise_stop_tracing();
> >  		}
> >  
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Check if we're the only ones running on this nohz_full CPU
> > +		 * and that we're on a PREEMPT_RCU setup. If so, let's fake a
> > +		 * QS since there is no way for RCU to know we're not making
> > +		 * use of it.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * Otherwise it'll be done through cond_resched().
> > +		 */
> > +		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) &&
> > +		    !housekeeping_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), HK_FLAG_MISC) &&
> > +		    tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> > +			local_irq_save(flags);
> > +			rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle();
> > +			local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +		}
> > +
> 
> This looks very specific and a corner case. Something that depends on how
> RCU works. This really should be in the RCU code such that if something
> changes, RCU maintainers are aware of this and can update this too.

The if statement could be relaxed to some extent (I'm looking into it ATM). I
made it more constraining to avoid the overhead for other users.

As for rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle(), I'm not the first one to use it for such
means. See multi_cpu_stop() in kernel/stop_machine.c. So I'm not sure it counts
as abusing RCU internals.

> I wonder if this is similar to what we have in trace_benchmark(). Would
> using: cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() work for you?

IIUC this only affects tasks_rcu, and doesn't help with regular RCU. We already
call cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() in osnoise when necesary, actually it was
introduced by you. :)

Thanks!

-- 
Nicolás Sáenz