Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:49:04 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.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: <20101108194904.GC4032@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20101104232148.GA28037@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20101105210059.GA27317@tsunami.ccur.com>
 <20101106192812.GI15561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20101108150644.GB5466@nowhere>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101108150644.GB5466@nowhere>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2527
Lines: 55

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 04:06:47PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.

Unfortunately, local_irq_save() is allowed to stand in for
rcu_read_lock_bh().  :-/

> 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 :)

And if we can make all the the preempt_disable(), local_irq_disable(), ...
invoke rcu_read_lock(), then we have some chance of being able to dispense
with the IPIs to CPUs not having callbacks that need to be executed.

							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/