Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-66270-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:45:18 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, willy@infradead.org, mgorman@suse.de,
	jpoimboe@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jgross@suse.com,
	andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, bristot@kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de,
	anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
	krypton@ulrich-teichert.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	David.Laight@aculab.com, richard@nod.at, jon.grimm@amd.com,
	bharata@amd.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling
Message-ID: <4e070ae0-29dc-41ee-aee6-0d3670304825@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20240213055554.1802415-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <a7e785f8-d4c3-4b1b-9abe-36ac0b971e44@paulmck-laptop>
 <87le7mpjpr.fsf@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87le7mpjpr.fsf@oracle.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:03:28PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> 
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:55:24PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This series adds a new scheduling model PREEMPT_AUTO, which like
> >> PREEMPT_DYNAMIC allows dynamic switching between a none/voluntary/full
> >> preemption model. However, unlike PREEMPT_DYNAMIC, it doesn't depend
> >> on explicit preemption points for the voluntary models.
> >>
> >> The series is based on Thomas' original proposal which he outlined
> >> in [1], [2] and in his PoC [3].
> >>
> >> An earlier RFC version is at [4].
> >
> > This uncovered a couple of latent bugs in RCU due to its having been
> > a good long time since anyone built a !SMP preemptible kernel with
> > non-preemptible RCU.  I have a couple of fixes queued on -rcu [1], most
> > likely for the merge window after next, but let me know if you need
> > them sooner.
> 
> Thanks. As you can probably tell, I skipped out on !SMP in my testing.
> But, the attached diff should tide me over until the fixes are in.

That was indeed my guess.  ;-)

> > I am also seeing OOM conditions during rcutorture testing of callback
> > flooding, but I am still looking into this.
> 
> That's on the PREEMPT_AUTO && PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY configuration?

On two of the PREEMPT_AUTO && PREEMPT_NONE configurations, but only on
two of them thus far.  I am running a longer test to see if this might
be just luck.  If not, I look to see what rcutorture scenarios TREE10
and TRACE01 have in common.

							Thanx, Paul