Re: [BELATED CORE TOPIC] context tracking / nohz / RCU state

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 06:16:01PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 02:52:59PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:07:54PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> >> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:49:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> >> This is a bit late, but here goes anyway.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Having played with the x86 context tracking hooks for awhile, I think
> >> >> >> it would be nice if core code that needs to be aware of CPU context
> >> >> >> (kernel, user, idle, guest, etc) could come up with single,
> >> >> >> comprehensible, easily validated set of hooks that arch code is
> >> >> >> supposed to call.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Currently we have:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  - RCU hooks, which come in a wide variety to notify about IRQs, NMIs, etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Something about people yelling at me for waking up idle CPUs, thus
> >> >> > degrading their battery lifetimes.  ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>  - Context tracking hooks.  Only used by some arches.  Calling these
> >> >> >> calls the RCU hooks for you in most cases.  They have weird
> >> >> >> interactions with interrupts and they're slow.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Combining these would be good, but there are subtleties.  For example,
> >> >> > some arches don't have context tracking, but RCU still needs to correctly
> >> >> > identify idle CPUs without in any way interrupting or awakening that CPU.
> >> >> > It would be good to make this faster, but it does have to work.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could we maybe have one set of old RCU-only (no context tracking)
> >> >> callbacks and a completely separate set of callbacks for arches that
> >> >> support full context tracking?  The implementation of the latter would
> >> >> presumably call into RCU.
> >> >
> >> > It should be possible for RCU to use context tracking if it is available
> >> > and to have RCU maintain its own state otherwise, if that is what you
> >> > are getting at.  Assuming that the decision is global and made at either
> >> > build or boot time, anyway.  Having some CPUs tracking context and others
> >> > not sounds like an invitation for subtle bugs.
> >>
> >> I think that, if this happens, the decision should be made at build
> >> time, per arch, and not be configurable.  If x86_64 uses context
> >> tracking, then I think x86_64 shouldn't need additional RCU callbacks,
> >> assuming that context tracking is comprehensive enough for RCU's
> >> purposes.
> >
> > If by "shouldn't need additional RCU callbacks" you mean that x86_64
> > shouldn't need to call the existing rcu_user_enter() and rcu_user_exit()
> > functions, I agree.  Ditto for rcu_irq_enter(), rcu_irq_exit(),
> > rcu_nmi_enter(), rcu_nmi_exit(), I would guess.  But would be necessary
> > to invoke rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit(), especially for
> > CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_SYSIDLE=y kernels.
> 
> Except that something wants vtime for idle, too, so maybe just
> kernel_to_idle().  On the other hand, the idle loop is already fully
> stocked with vtime stuff.

But vtime can work with approximation, and RCU cannot.  Also vtime
needs to measure time, and RCU needs to count transitions.  So I am
having some difficulty seeing the benefit of unifying vtime's and RCU's
idle entry/exit mechanism.

Now, if you are instead arguing for co-location of these mechanisms,
that might well be a different issue.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/