lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [19]   [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 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:26:45 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:

> Yes, local_irq_restore is light weight, and does not check for reschedules.
>
> I was thinking of case where ksoftirqd is woken up, but does not run unless
> we set the NEED_RESCHED flag. But that should get set anyway since probably
> ksoftirqd is of high enough priority than the currently running task..
>
> Roughly speaking the scenario could be something like:
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> <-- IPI comes in for the expedited GP, sets exp_hint
> local_irq_disable();
> // do a bunch of stuff
> rcu_read_unlock(); <-- This calls the rcu_read_unlock_special which raises
> the soft irq, and wakesup softirqd.

If softirqd is of higher priority than the current running task, then
the try_to_wake_up() will set NEED_RESCHED of the current task here.

-- Steve

> local_irq_enable();
>
> // Now ksoftirqd is ready to run but we don't switch into the
> // scheduler for sometime because tif_need_resched() returns false and
> // any cond_resched calls do nothing. So we potentially spend lots of
> // time before the next scheduling event.
>
> You think this should not be an issue?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-19 03:51    [W:0.098 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site