On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 07:47:58PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 07:33:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > 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) <j...@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.) > > The CONFIG_PREEMPT config I am using 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. > > The experiment is mentioned at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg912055.html > > If you apply the below diff, it applies cleanly on rcu/dev. And then run: > taskset 2 perl -e 'syscall 157, 666, 5000' & > taskset 1 perl -e 'syscall 157, 777' > > diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c > index cf5c67533ff1..b654b7566ca3 100644 > --- a/kernel/sys.c > +++ b/kernel/sys.c > @@ -2261,6 +2261,9 @@ int __weak arch_prctl_spec_ctrl_set(struct task_struct > *t, unsigned long which, > return -EINVAL; > } > > +#include <linux/delay.h> > + > + > SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3, > unsigned long, arg4, unsigned long, arg5) > { > @@ -2274,6 +2277,19 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, > arg2, unsigned long, arg3, > > error = 0; > switch (option) { > + case 666: > + preempt_disable(); > + pr_crit("SPIN start\n"); > + while (arg2--) > + mdelay(1); > + pr_crit("SPIN done!\n"); > + preempt_enable(); > + break; > + case 777: > + pr_crit("SYNC start\n"); > + synchronize_rcu();
By the way, just to mention, this needs to be changed to synchronize_rcu_expedited() and then built. So with that I see the multi millesecond delay. thanks, - Joel
