Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752783AbZCUS62 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:58:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752581AbZCUS6Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:58:16 -0400 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:51679 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752522AbZCUS6P (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:58:15 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:58:11 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Arjan van de Ven , dipankar@in.ibm.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question about usage of RCU in the input layer Message-ID: <20090321185811.GA7148@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090318215812.15496a86@infradead.org> <20090320020750.GA6807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090319202032.4c971d92@infradead.org> <200903202246.15772.dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <49C4AFC2.500@cosmosbay.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <49C4AFC2.500@cosmosbay.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2119 Lines: 49 On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:13:38AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Dmitry Torokhov a ?crit : > > On Thursday 19 March 2009 20:20:32 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>> I don't claim to understand the code in question, so it is entirely > >>> possible that the following is irrelevant. But one other reason for > >>> synchronize_rcu() is: > >>> > >>> 1. Make change. > >>> > >>> 2. synchronize_rcu() > >>> > >>> 3. Now you are guaranteed that all CPUs/tasks/whatever > >>> currently running either are not messing with you on the one hand, or > >>> have seen the change on the other. > >> ok so this is for the case where someone is already iterating the list. > >> > >> I don't see anything in the code that assumes this.. > > > > This is something that input core guarantees to its users: by the time > > input core calls hander->start() or, in its absence, by the time > > input_register_handle() returns, events from input drivers will be > > passed into the handle being registered, i.e. the presence of the > > new item in the list is noticed by all CPUs. > > > > Now, it is possible to stop using RCU primitives in the input core > > but I think that you'd want to figure out why synchronize_rcu() > > takes so long first, otheriwse you may find another "abuser" > > down the road. > > > > If a cpu does a loop, it nearly impossible that synchronize_rcu() can > be fast. > > We had same problem in ksoftirqd(), where I had to add a call > to rcu_qsctr_inc() to unblock other threads blocked in synchronize_rcu() > > http://git2.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=64ca5ab913f1594ef316556e65f5eae63ff50cee > > If a driver does a loop with no call to scheduler, it might have same problem And hopefully Arjan's promised bootgraph will give us some insights as to what might be holding up the grace period. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/