Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:11:18 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com,
        darren@dvhart.com, "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/11] rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq
 to kthread
Message-ID: <20110223151118.GF2163@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20110223013917.GA20996@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1298425183-21265-11-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110223024420.GA5809@nowhere>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110223024420.GA5809@nowhere>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2015
Lines: 62

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:44:24AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:39:40PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +static int rcu_node_kthread(void *arg)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	unsigned long mask;
> > +	struct rcu_node *rnp = (struct rcu_node *)arg;
> > +	struct sched_param sp;
> > +	struct task_struct *t;
> > +
> > +	for (;;) {
> > +		wait_event_interruptible(rnp->node_wq, rnp->wakemask != 0 ||
> > +						       kthread_should_stop());
> > +		if (kthread_should_stop())
> > +			break;
> > +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > +		mask = rnp->wakemask;
> > +		rnp->wakemask = 0;
> > +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > +		for (cpu = rnp->grplo; cpu <= rnp->grphi; cpu++, mask <<= 1) {
> 
> I may be confused, but shouldn't it be mask >>= 1 instead?

You are not confused, but I sure was!  ;-)

> rnp->wakemask is the unioned rdp->grpmask of the cpu(s) for which we woke that
> node thread up. Those mask start from 0, so what you want with the below
> check is to watch if the next CPU in group range is in the wakeup mask by shifting
> to the right.
> 
> No?

Not only are you are quite correct, but this bug might well explain the
slowdown in grace-period latency that I was seeing in tests.

Thank you very much!!!

							Thanx, Paul

> > +			if ((mask & 0x1) == 0)
> > +				continue;
> > +			preempt_disable();
> > +			per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 1;
> > +			t = per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu);
> > +			if (t == NULL) {
> > +				preempt_enable();
> > +				continue;
> > +			}
> > +			sp.sched_priority = RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO;
> > +			sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, cpu, &sp);
> > +			wake_up_process(t);
> > +			preempt_enable();
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
--
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/