DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=PYLyT0lGsBlZwMroQTaf18JlWQOzMgtNRpsOXo0cCXqeSymqyZZoEdW/mqGj7FesqL
         x5PbXAbP+T85tqAM80ys8cA6nhSc0gXfPpzcoQzz+86PRVRAqg8PuHHxX8lTlHD5qtMR
         pjkZtaXCYxk7wEfqWd5D3cDRqpxeaO5yLqG7o=
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:06:47 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com>, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, loic.minier@linaro.org, dhaval.giani@gmail.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        josh@joshtriplett.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] a local-timer-free version of RCU
Message-ID: <20101108150644.GB5466@nowhere>
References: <20101104232148.GA28037@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101105210059.GA27317@tsunami.ccur.com> <20101106192812.GI15561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101106192812.GI15561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2055
Lines: 45

On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 12:28:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 05:00:59PM -0400, Joe Korty wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * synchronize_sched - block until all CPUs have exited any non-preemptive
> > + * kernel code sequences.
> > + *
> > + * This means that all preempt_disable code sequences, including NMI and
> > + * hardware-interrupt handlers, in progress on entry will have completed
> > + * before this primitive returns.  However, this does not guarantee that
> > + * softirq handlers will have completed, since in some kernels
> 
> OK, so your approach treats preempt_disable code sequences as RCU
> read-side critical sections by relying on the fact that the per-CPU
> ->krcud task cannot run until such code sequences complete, correct?
> 
> This seems to require that each CPU's ->krcud task be awakened at
> least once per grace period, but I might well be missing something.


I understood it differently, but I might also be wrong as well. krcud
executes the callbacks, but it is only woken up for CPUs that want to
execute callbacks, not for those that only signal a quiescent state,
which is only determined in two ways through rcu_poll_other_cpus():

- if the CPU is in an rcu_read_lock() critical section, it has the
  IN_RCU_READ_LOCK flag. If so then we set up its DO_RCU_COMPLETION flag so
  that it signals its quiescent state on rcu_read_unlock().

- otherwise it's in a quiescent state.


This works for rcu and rcu bh critical sections.
But this works in rcu sched critical sections only if rcu_read_lock_sched() has
been called explicitly, otherwise that doesn't work (in preempt_disable(),
local_irq_save(), etc...). I think this is what is not complete when
Joe said it's not yet a complete rcu implementation.

This is also the part that scaries me most :)

--
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/