Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll

[Joel Fernandes]

> On Feb 28, 2024, at 4:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 03:14:34PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:18 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:37:51AM -0600, Yan Zhai wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:37 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Also optionally, I wonder if calling rcu_tasks_qs() directly is better
>>>>> (for documentation if anything) since the issue is Tasks RCU specific. Also
>>>>> code comment above the rcu_softirq_qs() call about cond_resched() not taking
>>>>> care of Tasks RCU would be great!
>>>>> 
>>>> Yes it's quite surprising to me that cond_resched does not help here,
>>> 
>>> In theory, it would be possible to make cond_resched() take care of
>>> Tasks RCU.  In practice, the lazy-preemption work is looking to get rid
>>> of cond_resched().  But if for some reason cond_resched() needs to stay
>>> around, doing that work might make sense.
>> 
>> In my opinion, cond_resched() doing Tasks-RCU QS does not make sense
>> (to me), because cond_resched() is to inform the scheduler to run
>> something else possibly of higher priority while the current task is
>> still runnable. On the other hand, what's not permitted in a Tasks RCU
>> reader is a voluntary sleep. So IMO even though cond_resched() is a
>> voluntary call, it is still not a sleep but rather a preemption point.
> 
> From the viewpoint of Task RCU's users, the point is to figure out
> when it is OK to free an already-removed tracing trampoline.  The
> current Task RCU implementation relies on the fact that tracing
> trampolines do not do voluntary context switches.

Yes.

> 
>> So a Tasks RCU reader should perfectly be able to be scheduled out in
>> the middle of a read-side critical section (in current code) by
>> calling cond_resched(). It is just like involuntary preemption in the
>> middle of a RCU reader, in disguise, Right?
> 
> You lost me on this one.  This for example is not permitted:
> 
>    rcu_read_lock();
>    cond_resched();
>    rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> But in a CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel, that RCU reader could be preempted.
> 
> So cond_resched() looks like a voluntary context switch to me.  Recall
> that vanilla non-preemptible RCU will treat them as quiescent states if
> the grace period extends long enough.
> 
> What am I missing here?

That we are discussing Tasks-RCU read side section? Sorry I should have been more clear. I thought sleeping was not permitted in Tasks RCU reader, but non-sleep context switches (example involuntarily getting preempted were).

 - Joel



> 
>                            Thanx, Paul