On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:30:37PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:08:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:41:38PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:17:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:57:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > > Hello folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I wrote the title in a misleading way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please change the title to something else such as,
> > > > > "rcu: Report a quiescent state when it's in the state" or,
> > > > > "rcu: Add points reporting quiescent states where proper" or so on.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2018-05-11 오후 5:30, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > > >We expect a quiescent state of TASKS_RCU when
> > > > > >cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs()
> > > > > >is called, no matter whether it actually be scheduled or not.
> > > > > >However,
> > > > > >it currently doesn't report the quiescent state when the task enters
> > > > > >into __schedule() as it's called with preempt = true. So make it
> > > > > >report
> > > > > >the quiescent state unconditionally when cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs()
> > > > > >is
> > > > > >called.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And in TINY_RCU, even though the quiescent state of rcu_bh also
> > > > > >should
> > > > > >be reported when the tick interrupt comes from user, it doesn't. So
> > > > > >make
> > > > > >it reported.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Lastly in TREE_RCU, rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch() should be
> > > > > >reported when the tick interrupt comes from not only user but also
> > > > > >idle,
> > > > > >as an extended quiescent state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com>
> > > > > >---
> > > > > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > > kernel/rcu/tiny.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > >index ee8cf5fc..7432261 100644
> > > > > >--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > >+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > >@@ -195,8 +195,8 @@ static inline void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) {
> > > > > >}
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > #define cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() \
> > > > > > do { \
> > > > > >- if (!cond_resched()) \
> > > > > >- rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch_lite(current); \
> > > > > >+ rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch_lite(current); \
> > > > > >+ cond_resched(); \
> > > >
> > > > Ah, good point.
> > > >
> > > > Peter, I have to ask... Why is "cond_resched()" considered a preemption
> > > > while "schedule()" is not?
> > >
> > > Infact something interesting I inferred from the __schedule loop related
> > > to
> > > your question:
> > >
> > > switch_count can either be set to prev->invcsw or prev->nvcsw. If we can
> > > assume that switch_count reflects whether the context switch is
> > > involuntary
> > > or voluntary,
> > >
> > > task-running-state preempt switch_count
> > > 0 (running) 1 involuntary
> > > 0 0 involuntary
> > > 1 0 voluntary
> > > 1 1 involuntary
> > >
> > > According to the above table, both the task's running state and the
> > > preempt
> > > parameter to __schedule should be used together to determine if the
> > > switch is
> > > a voluntary one or not.
> > >
> > > So this code in rcu_note_context_switch should really be:
> > > if (!preempt && !(current->state & TASK_RUNNING))
>
> I should have writte here- !preempt && current->state
>
> > > rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch_lite(current);
> > >
> > > According to the above table, cond_resched always classifies as an
> > > involuntary switch which makes sense to me. Even though cond_resched is
> > > explicitly called, its still sort of involuntary in the sense its not
> > > called
> > > into the scheduler for sleeping, but rather for seeing if something else
> > > can
> > > run instead (a preemption point). Infact none of the task deactivation in
> > > the
> > > __schedule loop will run if cond_resched is used.
> > >
> > > I agree that if schedule was called directly but with TASK_RUNNING=1, then
> > > that could probably be classified an involuntary switch too...
> > >
> > > Also since we're deciding to call rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch_lite
> > > unconditionally, then IMO this comment on that macro:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Note a voluntary context switch for RCU-tasks benefit. This is a
> > > * macro rather than an inline function to avoid #include hell.
> > > */
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> > > #define rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch_lite(t)
> > >
> > > Should be changed to:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Note a attempt to perform a voluntary context switch for RCU-tasks
> > > * benefit. This is called even in situations where a context switch
> > > * didn't really happen even though it was requested. This is a
> > > * macro rather than an inline function to avoid #include hell.
> > > */
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> > > #define rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch_lite(t)
> > >
> > > Right?
> > >
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong about anything, thanks,
> >
> > The starting point for me is that Tasks RCU is a special-purpose mechanism
> > for freeing trampolines in PREEMPT=y kernels. The approach is to arrange
> > for the trampoline to be inaccessible to future execution, wait for a
> > tasks-RCU grace period, then free the trampoline. So a tasks-RCU grace
> > period must wait until all tasks have spent at least some time outside
> > of a trampoline. My understanding is that trampolines cannot contain
> > preemption points, such as cond_resched() and cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs(),
> > so we want to count them as quiescent states regardless of whether or
> > not any associated context switch is counted as involuntary.
> >
> > What situations lead to the second line of your table above?
> > The sched_yield() system call, but trampolines don't do system calls,
> > either, as far as I know.
> >
> > So it looks to me like that test can leave out the TASK_RUNNING check.
>
> I don't know much about tasks-RCU to comment more, sorry. Probably a few more
> reading nights for me to catch up with that. Its possible the check is not
> needed and tasks-RCU can survive without it, but I was thinking from a
> correctness and future-proofing stand point... I generally don't like
> inconsistencies. The check in the __schedule loop is as:
>
> if (!preempt && prev->state) {
> ....
> // switch_count = voluntary context switch counter pointer
> ....
> } else {
> ....
>
> // switch_count = involuntary context switch counter pointer
> ....
> }
>
> // context switch really happening
> if (prev != next) {
> ....
> ++switch_count;
> }
>
> The first conditional if (!preempt...) above is what I was referring to which
> also checks the state.
>
> Also this issue aside, I was more trying to answer your question about why
> schedule() is or isn't a preemption point, by sharing the table but I
> possibly caused more confusion, sorry :-(. I'll let Peter and Steven chime in
> since they know more than me about that and will just shutup and listen
> instead of being more noisy.. :-D
Don't get me wrong, this discussion was quite useful to me. We probably
need to at least change the comments, and perhaps the code as well. But
I agree that we need input from Peter and Steven to make much more forward
progress.
Thanx, Paul
