Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1560243 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched() provide RCU quiescent state

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched()  provide RCU quiescent state "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-17 05:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched()  provide RCU quiescent state Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-01-17 12:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched()  provide RCU quiescent state "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-17 13:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched()  provide RCU quiescent state Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-01-17 13:20 +0100
          Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched()  provide RCU quiescent state "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-18 08:20 +0100

#1560243 — Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched() provide RCU quiescent state

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 06:11:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU
> > quiescent states to cond_resched().
> 
> Which would make: rcu_read_lock(); cond_resched(); rcu_read_unlock();
> invalid under preemptible RCU. Is it already?

In theory, yes.  In practice, I just tested it with preemption and
lockdep enabled, and it didn't complain.  If further testing finds
complaints, we can either fix those uses (preferred) or revert
this patch.

> > Warning: This is a prototype.  For example, it does not correctly
> > handle Tasks RCU.  Which is OK for the moment, given that no one
> > actually uses Tasks RCU yet.
> 
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4907,6 +4907,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> >  		preempt_schedule_common();
> >  		return 1;
> >  	}
> > +	rcu_all_qs();
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> Still not a real fan of this, it does make cond_resched() touch a bunch
> more cachelines, also, I suppose that if we're going to do this, we
> should make __cond_resched_lock() and __cond_resched_softirq() act
> similarly.

Michal (now CCed) argues that having to distinguish between cond_resched()
and cond_resched_rcu_qs() is overly burdensome.  Michal?

Any thoughts on how we might remove this burden without the additional
cache misses?  I will take another look as well to see what could make
it lower cost.  There are probably ways...  Would it make sense to
have RCU maintain a need-rcu_all_qs() flage in the same cacheline as
the __preempt_count?  Perhaps throttling the writes to this flag from
the RCU grace-period kthreads to once per 100 milliseconds or so?

							Thanx, Paul

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1560499

On Mon 16-01-17 16:54:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 06:11:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU
> > > quiescent states to cond_resched().
> > 
> > Which would make: rcu_read_lock(); cond_resched(); rcu_read_unlock();
> > invalid under preemptible RCU. Is it already?
> 
> In theory, yes.  In practice, I just tested it with preemption and
> lockdep enabled, and it didn't complain.  If further testing finds
> complaints, we can either fix those uses (preferred) or revert
> this patch.
> 
> > > Warning: This is a prototype.  For example, it does not correctly
> > > handle Tasks RCU.  Which is OK for the moment, given that no one
> > > actually uses Tasks RCU yet.
> > 
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -4907,6 +4907,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> > >  		preempt_schedule_common();
> > >  		return 1;
> > >  	}
> > > +	rcu_all_qs();
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > 
> > Still not a real fan of this, it does make cond_resched() touch a bunch
> > more cachelines, also, I suppose that if we're going to do this, we
> > should make __cond_resched_lock() and __cond_resched_softirq() act
> > similarly.
> 
> Michal (now CCed) argues that having to distinguish between cond_resched()
> and cond_resched_rcu_qs() is overly burdensome.  Michal?

Yes, it is really not clear which one is meant to be in which context. I
really do not see which cond_resched should be turned intto
cond_resched_rcu_qs.

> Any thoughts on how we might remove this burden without the additional
> cache misses?  I will take another look as well to see what could make
> it lower cost.  There are probably ways...  Would it make sense to
> have RCU maintain a need-rcu_all_qs() flage in the same cacheline as
> the __preempt_count?  Perhaps throttling the writes to this flag from
> the RCU grace-period kthreads to once per 100 milliseconds or so?

Can the stall detector simply request rescheduling when it gets
dangerously close to the timeout?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1560530

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-01-17 16:54:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 06:11:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > > > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU
> > > > quiescent states to cond_resched().
> > > 
> > > Which would make: rcu_read_lock(); cond_resched(); rcu_read_unlock();
> > > invalid under preemptible RCU. Is it already?
> > 
> > In theory, yes.  In practice, I just tested it with preemption and
> > lockdep enabled, and it didn't complain.  If further testing finds
> > complaints, we can either fix those uses (preferred) or revert
> > this patch.
> > 
> > > > Warning: This is a prototype.  For example, it does not correctly
> > > > handle Tasks RCU.  Which is OK for the moment, given that no one
> > > > actually uses Tasks RCU yet.
> > > 
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > @@ -4907,6 +4907,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> > > >  		preempt_schedule_common();
> > > >  		return 1;
> > > >  	}
> > > > +	rcu_all_qs();
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > Still not a real fan of this, it does make cond_resched() touch a bunch
> > > more cachelines, also, I suppose that if we're going to do this, we
> > > should make __cond_resched_lock() and __cond_resched_softirq() act
> > > similarly.
> > 
> > Michal (now CCed) argues that having to distinguish between cond_resched()
> > and cond_resched_rcu_qs() is overly burdensome.  Michal?
> 
> Yes, it is really not clear which one is meant to be in which context. I
> really do not see which cond_resched should be turned intto
> cond_resched_rcu_qs.
> 
> > Any thoughts on how we might remove this burden without the additional
> > cache misses?  I will take another look as well to see what could make
> > it lower cost.  There are probably ways...  Would it make sense to
> > have RCU maintain a need-rcu_all_qs() flage in the same cacheline as
> > the __preempt_count?  Perhaps throttling the writes to this flag from
> > the RCU grace-period kthreads to once per 100 milliseconds or so?
> 
> Can the stall detector simply request rescheduling when it gets
> dangerously close to the timeout?

It is quite possible that half of the stall timeout would be a better
choice than my 100 milliseconds, but either way, there would be need
for a flag or some such.

							Thanx, Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1560541

On Tue 17-01-17 04:05:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-01-17 16:54:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 06:11:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > > > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > > > > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU
> > > > > quiescent states to cond_resched().
> > > > 
> > > > Which would make: rcu_read_lock(); cond_resched(); rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > invalid under preemptible RCU. Is it already?
> > > 
> > > In theory, yes.  In practice, I just tested it with preemption and
> > > lockdep enabled, and it didn't complain.  If further testing finds
> > > complaints, we can either fix those uses (preferred) or revert
> > > this patch.
> > > 
> > > > > Warning: This is a prototype.  For example, it does not correctly
> > > > > handle Tasks RCU.  Which is OK for the moment, given that no one
> > > > > actually uses Tasks RCU yet.
> > > > 
> > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > @@ -4907,6 +4907,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> > > > >  		preempt_schedule_common();
> > > > >  		return 1;
> > > > >  	}
> > > > > +	rcu_all_qs();
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > 
> > > > Still not a real fan of this, it does make cond_resched() touch a bunch
> > > > more cachelines, also, I suppose that if we're going to do this, we
> > > > should make __cond_resched_lock() and __cond_resched_softirq() act
> > > > similarly.
> > > 
> > > Michal (now CCed) argues that having to distinguish between cond_resched()
> > > and cond_resched_rcu_qs() is overly burdensome.  Michal?
> > 
> > Yes, it is really not clear which one is meant to be in which context. I
> > really do not see which cond_resched should be turned intto
> > cond_resched_rcu_qs.
> > 
> > > Any thoughts on how we might remove this burden without the additional
> > > cache misses?  I will take another look as well to see what could make
> > > it lower cost.  There are probably ways...  Would it make sense to
> > > have RCU maintain a need-rcu_all_qs() flage in the same cacheline as
> > > the __preempt_count?  Perhaps throttling the writes to this flag from
> > > the RCU grace-period kthreads to once per 100 milliseconds or so?
> > 
> > Can the stall detector simply request rescheduling when it gets
> > dangerously close to the timeout?
> 
> It is quite possible that half of the stall timeout would be a better
> choice than my 100 milliseconds, but either way, there would be need
> for a flag or some such.

E.g. set_tsk_need_resched() on the task currently running on a cpu which
is preventing the rcu grace period for too long?

That would only require change to the stall detector and the cond_resched
could be left alone completely.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1561329

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 01:11:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 04:05:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 16:54:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 06:11:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > > > > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > > > > > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU
> > > > > > quiescent states to cond_resched().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which would make: rcu_read_lock(); cond_resched(); rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > invalid under preemptible RCU. Is it already?
> > > > 
> > > > In theory, yes.  In practice, I just tested it with preemption and
> > > > lockdep enabled, and it didn't complain.  If further testing finds
> > > > complaints, we can either fix those uses (preferred) or revert
> > > > this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > > > Warning: This is a prototype.  For example, it does not correctly
> > > > > > handle Tasks RCU.  Which is OK for the moment, given that no one
> > > > > > actually uses Tasks RCU yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > > @@ -4907,6 +4907,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> > > > > >  		preempt_schedule_common();
> > > > > >  		return 1;
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > > +	rcu_all_qs();
> > > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > 
> > > > > Still not a real fan of this, it does make cond_resched() touch a bunch
> > > > > more cachelines, also, I suppose that if we're going to do this, we
> > > > > should make __cond_resched_lock() and __cond_resched_softirq() act
> > > > > similarly.
> > > > 
> > > > Michal (now CCed) argues that having to distinguish between cond_resched()
> > > > and cond_resched_rcu_qs() is overly burdensome.  Michal?
> > > 
> > > Yes, it is really not clear which one is meant to be in which context. I
> > > really do not see which cond_resched should be turned intto
> > > cond_resched_rcu_qs.
> > > 
> > > > Any thoughts on how we might remove this burden without the additional
> > > > cache misses?  I will take another look as well to see what could make
> > > > it lower cost.  There are probably ways...  Would it make sense to
> > > > have RCU maintain a need-rcu_all_qs() flage in the same cacheline as
> > > > the __preempt_count?  Perhaps throttling the writes to this flag from
> > > > the RCU grace-period kthreads to once per 100 milliseconds or so?
> > > 
> > > Can the stall detector simply request rescheduling when it gets
> > > dangerously close to the timeout?
> > 
> > It is quite possible that half of the stall timeout would be a better
> > choice than my 100 milliseconds, but either way, there would be need
> > for a flag or some such.
> 
> E.g. set_tsk_need_resched() on the task currently running on a cpu which
> is preventing the rcu grace period for too long?
> 
> That would only require change to the stall detector and the cond_resched
> could be left alone completely.

Thank you!!!

The other complication is that under CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, _cond_resched()
is an empty function.  That would be one reason why use of cond_resched()
wasn't always giving RCU the quiescent states that it needs.  And that
is a problem with this patch, which I therefore need to defer to 4.12.

That aside, the reason I am reluctant to use the need-resched approach
except as an emergency measure is that the way I have to set that bit
remotely involves IPIs.

But don't get me wrong, it is extremely useful as an emergency meaure.
I am just trying to get cond_resched() to help on a non-emergency basis.

							Thanx, Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web