LVS
lvs-devel
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper

To: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:04:12 -0700
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:22:08PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 
>       Hello,
> 
> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:22:05PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > 
> > > 2. Same without need_resched because cond_resched already
> > > performs the same checks:
> > > 
> > > static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > > {
> > > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > >   rcu_read_unlock();
> > >   cond_resched();
> > >   rcu_read_lock();
> > > #endif
> > > }
> > 
> > Ah so the 'problem' with this last version is that it does an unconditional 
> > /
> > unnessecary rcu_read_unlock().
> 
>       It is just a barrier() for the non-preempt case.
> 
> > The below would be in line with all the other cond_resched*() 
> > implementations.
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index 802a751..fd2c77f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -2449,6 +2449,13 @@ extern int __cond_resched_softirq(void);
> >     __cond_resched_softirq();                                       \
> >  })
> >  
> > +extern int __cond_resched_rcu(void);
> > +
> > +#define cond_resched_rcu() ({                      \
> > +   __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0);   \
> 
>       I see your goal. But digging into __might_sleep()
> I see that rcu_sleep_check() will scream for the non-preempt
> case because we are under rcu_read_lock.
> 
>       What about such inline version:
> 
> static void inline cond_resched_rcu(void)
> {
> #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
>       rcu_read_unlock();
>       __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0);
>       cond_resched();
>       rcu_read_lock();
> #else
>       __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0);
>       rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_preempt_depth() == 1,
>               "Illegal cond_resched_rcu() context");

The above requires that include/linux/sched.h be included.  This might
be OK, but please check the current intended uses.

                                                Thanx, Paul

> #endif
> }
> 
>       It will restrict to single RCU lock level for all
> RCU implementations. But we don't have _cond_resched_rcu
> helper for two reasons:
> 
> - __might_sleep uses __FILE__, __LINE__
> - only cond_resched generates code, so need_resched() is
> avoided
> 
> > +   __cond_resched_rcu();                   \
> > +})
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Does a critical section need to be broken due to another
> >   * task waiting?: (technically does not depend on CONFIG_PREEMPT,
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 7d7901a..2b3b4e6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4358,6 +4358,20 @@ int __sched __cond_resched_softirq(void)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cond_resched_softirq);
> >  
> > +int __sched __cond_resched_rcu(void)
> > +{
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > +   if (should_resched()) {
> > +           rcu_read_unlock();
> > +           __cond_resched();
> > +           rcu_read_lock();
> > +           return 1;
> > +   }
> > +#endif
> > +   return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cond_resched_rcu);
> > +
> 
> Regards
> 
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>