lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] doc: rcu: remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 07:13:49PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 07:08:27PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 04:17:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 02:29:55PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > The Requirements.html document says "Disabling Preemption Does Not Block
> > > > Grace Periods". However this is no longer true with the RCU
> > > > consolidation. Lets remove the obsolete (non-)requirement entirely.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > >
> > > Good catch, queued, thank you!
> >
> > Thanks! By the way after I sent the patch, I also tried Oleg's experiment to
> > confirm that this is indeed obsolete. :)
> >
> > One thing interesting came up when I tried synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> > instead of synchronize_rcu() in Oleg's experiment, I still saw a multiple
> > millisecond delay between when the rcu read section completely and the
> > synchronize_rcu_expedited returns:
> >
> > For example, with synchronize_rcu_expedited, the 'SPIN done' and the 'SYNC
> > done' are about 3 millisecond apart:
> > [ 77.599142] SPIN start
> > [ 77.601595] SYNC start
> > [ 82.604950] SPIN done!
> > [ 82.607836] SYNC done!
> > I saw anywhere from 2-6 milliseconds.
> >
> > The reason I bring this up is according to Requirements.html: In some cases,
> > the multi-millisecond synchronize_rcu() latencies are unacceptable. In these
> > cases, synchronize_rcu_expedited() may be used instead,.. so either I messed
> > something up in the experiment, or I need to update this part of the document ;-)

In normal testing, 2-6 milliseconds is indeed excessive. Could you please
point me at Oleg's experiment? Also, what CONFIG_PREEMPT setting were
you using? (My guess is CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.)

> So I realized I'm running in Qemu so it could also be a scheduling delay of
> the vcpu thread. So apologies about the noise if the experiment works fine
> for you.

I used rcuperf, which might not be doing the same thing as Oleg's
experiment.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-15 04:33    [W:0.059 / U:4.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site