Re: [PATCH 4/7] nohz: Allow rcu extended quiescent state handlingseperately from tick stop

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 12:19 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> It is assumed that rcu won't be used once we switch to tickless
> mode and until we restart the tick. However this is not always
> true, as in x86-64 where we dereference the idle notifiers after
> the tick is stopped.
> 
> To prepare for fixing this, add a parameter to tick_nohz_enter_idle()
> named "rcu_ext_qs" that tells whether we want to enter RCU extended
> quiescent state at the same time we stop the tick.
> 
> If no use of RCU is made in the idle loop between
> tick_nohz_enter_idle() and tick_nohz_exit_idle() calls, the parameter
> must be set to true and the arch doesn't need to call rcu_enter_nohz()
> and rcu_exit_nohz() explicitly.
> 
> Otherwise the parameter must be set to false and the arch is
> responsible of calling:
> 
> - rcu_enter_nohz() after its last use of RCU before the CPU is put
> to sleep.
> - rcu_exit_nohz() before the first use of RCU after the CPU is woken
> up. 

I can't say this really makes sense:

  tick_nohz_idle_enter(false);

reads like, don't enter nohz state, not: enter nohz state but don't
enter rcu-nohz state.

I realize you want to keep the per-arch frobbing low, but since you're
already touching all of them, I think its more important to keep the
functions readable.

Why not simply fully split nohz and rcu and modify all idle routines
with both calls?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/