On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:43:19AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 18:33:01 -0700
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
> >
> > The RCU-specific resched_cpu() function sends a resched IPI to the
> > specified CPU, which can be used to force the tick on for a given
> > nohz_full CPU. This is needed when this nohz_full CPU is looping in the
> > kernel while blocking the current grace period. However, for the tick
> > to actually be forced on in all cases, that CPU's rcu_data structure's
> > ->rcu_urgent_qs flag must be set beforehand. This commit therefore
> > causes rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() to set this flag prior to invoking
> > resched_cpu() on a holdout nohz_full CPU.
>
> Should this be marked for stable?
Not unless and until people are actually running into this. NO_HZ_FULL
has left the tick off for in-kernel loops on nohz_full CPUs for almost
ten years now, and as far as I know, without complaint.
So from what I am seeing, the risk of backporting far exceeds the benefit.
Thanx, Paul
> -- Steve
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 8110514..0d83b19 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1073,6 +1073,7 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data
> > *rdp)
> > if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(rdp->cpu) &&
> > time_after(jiffies,
> > READ_ONCE(rdp->last_fqs_resched) + jtsq * 3)) {
> > + WRITE_ONCE(*ruqp, true);
> > resched_cpu(rdp->cpu);
> > WRITE_ONCE(rdp->last_fqs_resched, jiffies);
> > }
>
