Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932236Ab2BXQv5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:51:57 -0500 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:51634 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757811Ab2BXQvy (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:51:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:51:30 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Josh Boyer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fedoraproject.org, rostedt@goodmis.org Subject: Re: Large slowdown with 'x86: Avoid invoking RCU when CPU is idle' Message-ID: <20120224165130.GB2399@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20120222011652.GE23186@zod.bos.redhat.com> <20120222013252.GZ2375@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120222014242.GF23186@zod.bos.redhat.com> <20120224144032.GA13903@zod.bos.redhat.com> <20120224161743.GA2399@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120224162745.GC13903@zod.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120224162745.GC13903@zod.bos.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12022416-5518-0000-0000-0000027B5ECF Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3388 Lines: 78 On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:27:46AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 09:40:32AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 08:42:43PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > And patch #47 in that series has been obsoleted by another series > > > > > from Steven Rostedt: > > > > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/7/231 > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > Hopefully these fix both splats and slowness. > > > > > > > > So again, I'm slightly confused on how RCU patches flow. Eric > > > > originally reported the bug for which you created the patch I applied > > > > against 3.3. The giant patch series above seems queued for 3.4. > > > > > > > > I don't see stable CC'd on 45-47, nor any of Steven's patches. I doubt > > > > I'd want to go applying the 47-patch series on 3.3 at the moment, and > > > > given you have these marked for 3.4 I don't think you do either. > > > > However, is there some kind of fix for the original bug report against > > > > 3.3? > > > > > > I was being sincere when I asked the above questions. Could you > > > describe how you handle RCU patches across releases and if there is a > > > fix for the 3.3-rcX issue Eric reported that is going into 3.3? > > > > > > I know you're quite busy, but I'd like to understand your thinking so I > > > know what to expect going forward. > > > > Apologies for being slow, but could you please point me at the original > > bug report that the old patch was designed to fix? My email filing > > seems to have failed me in this case. > > Same thread I linked in my original email: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/24/203 Thank you! > > My guess is that the best short-term fix for Fedora is to disable the > > warning, but I do need to see the original bug to work out if that really > > is a prudent course of action. > > Honestly, I don't care from a Fedora perspective. I can do what I need > to do there without too much trouble. I'm asking because afaik, upstream > still has this problem. The thread gets a bit curvy but from what I can > tell it resulted in the patch I highlighted as having issues. Maybe I > overlooked something else that fixed Eric's problem? "A bit curvy" is right -- which is why the fixes ended up at the end of my large patch series for 3.4. But after looking this over, Steven Rostedt's three-patch set should suffice: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/7/231 The reason that mine are not needed is that the problematic code is called -only- from idle, not from process context, and also that the problematic code is tracing. My patch #45 is required for code that is called from both process context and from idle. My patch #46 is required for non-tracing uses of RCU from within the idle loop -- along with TBD patches to wrap those uses of RCU in the RCU_NONIDLE() macro. So again, in your particular case of x86's power-tracing features, Steven Rostedt's three-patch series called out above should be all that you need. I have CCed Steven in case there is some prerequisite to his patch set. 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/