@paulmck-laptop/
Co-developed-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 87 +++
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 19 +++-
2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff
The details of this are subtle and was discussed recently. Add a
quick-quiz about this and refer to it from the code, for more clarity.
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst | 32 +++
kernel/rcu/tree.c
Add detailed comments explaining the critical ordering constraints
during RCU grace period initialization, based on discussions with
Frederic.
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
Co-developed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
@paulmck-laptop/
Co-developed-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 87 +++
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 19 +++-
2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff
Add detailed comments explaining the critical ordering constraints
during RCU grace period initialization, based on discussions with
Frederic.
Co-developed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 41 +++
kernel
The details of this are subtle and was discussed recently. Add a
quick-quiz about this and refer to it from the code, for more clarity.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst | 32 +++
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4
On 7/7/2025 10:22 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Sun, Jul 06, 2025 at 11:32:08PM -0400, Joel Fernandes a écrit :
>> The synchronization of CPU offlining with GP initialization is confusing
>> to put it mildly (rightfully so as the issue it deals with is complex).
>&g
@paulmck-laptop/
Co-developed-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 87 +++
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 19 +++-
2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design
The details of this are subtle and was discussed recently. Add a
quick-quiz about this and refer to it from the code, for more clarity.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst | 32 +++
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4
Add detailed comments explaining the critical ordering constraints
during RCU grace period initialization, based on discussions with
Frederic.
Co-developed-by: Frederic Weisbecker
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
.../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 41 +++
kernel
On 4/21/2025 2:32 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 01:53:17PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On 4/21/2025 1:47 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> Currently, the ->gpwrap is not tested (at all per my testing) due to the
>>> requirement of a l
On 4/21/2025 1:47 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Currently, the ->gpwrap is not tested (at all per my testing) due to the
> requirement of a large delta between a CPU's rdp->gp_seq and its node's
> rnp->gpseq.
>
> This results in no testing of ->gpwrap bein
hen for 5 minutes,
we switch to a smaller delta causing 1-2 wraps in 5 minutes. I believe
this is reasonable since we at least add a little bit of testing for
usecases where ->gpwrap is set.
Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
v4->v5
- Added gpwrap_lag
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
This commit adds the 2024 LWN RCU API article set.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst b/Documen
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250218005047.27258-1-richard.weiy...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
---
Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
On 2/8/2024 4:22 AM, Huang Yiwei wrote:
>
>
> On 2/7/2024 10:13 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[..]
>>> Perhaps we need an option for these too, and have all options be
>>> updated via the command line. That way we don't need to make special
>>> boot line
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:14 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 05:24:58 -0500
> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> > Btw, hopefully the "trace off on warning" and related boot parameters also
> > apply
> > to instances, I haven't personally check
ffer and multiple instance buffer on all CPUs, or only dump on CPU
> that triggered the oops if =2 or =orig_cpu is given
>
> Also, the sysctl node can handle the input accordingly.
>
> Cc: Ross Zwisler
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
> Signed-
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:08:49PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 04:56:37PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:12:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > > +static int
> &
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:47:56PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Paul, also what what happens in the following scenario:
> > > >
> > > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > >
> > > > A syscall causes rcu_eqs_exit()
> > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > >
Hi Paul,
I think this is the only contentious patch preventing my resend of the
series, let me know what you think, I replied below:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:56:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:59PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
[snip]
> > d
All comments addressed on this one, thanks!
- Joel
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:46:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:58PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Remove kfree_rcu() special casing and lazy handling from RCU.
> > For Tiny
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:45:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:09:52AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > During testing, it was observed that amount of memory consumed due
> > kfree_rcu() batching is 300-400MB. Previously we had only a singl
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:12:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:55PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This test runs kfree_rcu() in a loop to measure performance of the new
> > kfree_rcu() batching functionality.
> >
> > The fo
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:54:07AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:10 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43:55AM
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:13:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43:55AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43:55AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > > > This change is not fixing a bug, so there is no need for an
> > > > > > emergency fix,
> > &
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> > > > > This change is not fixing a bug, so there is no need for an emergency
> > > > > fix,
> > > > > and thus no point in additional churn. I understand that it is a bit
> > > > > annoying to code and test something and
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> On the tracing patch... That patch might be a good idea regardless,
> but I bet that the reason that you felt the sudden need for it was due
> to the loss of information in your eventual ->dynticks_nesting field.
> After a
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:12:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:14:44PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:42:41PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:42:41PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:19:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:05:25PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:13:44PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:33:53PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > The dynticks counter are confusing due to crowbar writes of
> > DYNTICK_IRQ_NONIDLE whose purpose is to detect half-interrupts (
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:31:19PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:57PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Make use of RCU's debug_objects debugging support
> > (CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD) similar to call_rcu() and other flavors.
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:19:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:05:25PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:23:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:33:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:46:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:34:58PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:28:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:23:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:33:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > The dynticks_nmi_nesting counter serves 4 purposes:
> >
> > (a) rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() needs to be
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:28:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a series on top of the patch "rcu/tree: Add basic support for
> > kfree_rcu() batching".
&g
evious patches to simplify rcu_dyntick
counters [1] and with these traces, I have verified the counters are
working properly.
[1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1120021/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1120022/
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
incl
more than 1 additional list did not
show any improvement.
Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 61 ---
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:52:53AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > During testing, it was observed that amount of memory consumed due
> > kfree_rcu() batching is 300-400MB. Previously
e_rcu() calls.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 9b9ae4db1c2d..64568f12641d 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2757,6 +2757,7 @@ static
Remove kfree_rcu() special casing and lazy handling from RCU.
For Tiny RCU we fold the special handling into just Tiny RCU code.
Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt | 13 +++--
include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h | 2
ree_rcu() is handled separately from call_rcu(), we also get rid of
kfree "lazy" handling from tree RCU as suggested by Paul which will be unused.
This also results in a nice negative delta as well.
Joel Fernandes (Google) (5):
rcu/rcuperf: Add kfree_rcu() performance Tests
rcu/tree: Add multiple
Now that kfree_rcu() special casing have been removed from tree RCU,
remove kfree_call_rcu_nobatch() since it is not needed.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
.../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 4 ---
include/linux/rcutiny.h | 5 ---
include/linux
CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT and
CONFIG_PROVE_RCU for realistic comparisons with/without batching.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
.../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 17 ++
kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 181 +-
2 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 8
more than 1 additional list did not
show any improvement.
Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 64 +--
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:34 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
wrote:
>
> The dynticks_nmi_nesting counter serves 4 purposes:
>
And actually, I meant 3 purposes ;-) :-P
thanks,
- Joel
> (a) rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() needs to be able to detect first
> interrup
also do cheaper
comparisons with zero instead for the code that keeps the tick on in
rcu_nmi_enter_common().
In the next patch, both of the concerns of (2) will be addressed and
then we can get rid of dynticks_nmi_nesting, however one step at a time.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
kernel/
_tick would
have been set to true in the outermost interrupt, so the nested/NMI
interrupts will check forced_tick anyway, and bail.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
.../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst | 31 +++--
Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt | 6 +-
kerne
simple counter and can be "crowbarred" in
common situations.
Several nights of rcutorture testing with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG on all RCU
kernel configurations have survived without any splats.
Further testing is in progress, hence marked as RFC!
thanks,
- Joel
Joel Fernandes (Google) (2)
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:56:01AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Can this be used to observe which library pages other processes are
> > > > accessing, even if you don't have access to those processes, as long
> > > > as you can map the same libraries? I realize that there are already a
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:18:42AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> > as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instea
list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
checking in the caller.
Acked-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
v1->v3: Changed lock_is_held() to lockdep_is_held()
ker
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:48:41PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Joel.
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:11:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> > as well as lock. Just use the supp
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:44:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:22:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> > > - * Queue an RCU callback for lazy invocation after a grace period.
> > > - * This will likely be later named somethin
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:05:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 13-08-19 11:36:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 07-08-19 13:15:55, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > Idle page trackin
[1]
> > http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190723035725-mutt-send-email-...@kernel.org
> > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/19/824
> >
> > Cc: Rao Shoaib
> > Cc: max.byungchul.p...@gmail.com
> > Cc: byungchul.p...@lge.com
> > Cc: kernel-t...@an
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:34:16PM +0200, Daniel Gruss wrote:
> On 8/13/19 5:29 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Mon 12-08-19 20:14:38, Jann Horn wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Joel Fernandes (Go
CONFIG_PROVE_RCU for realistic comparisons with/without batching.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 189 +--
1 file changed, 181 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
index
chul.p...@lge.com
Cc: kernel-t...@android.com
Cc: kernel-t...@lge.com
Co-developed-by: Byungchul Park
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
v2->v3: Just some code comment changes thanks to Byungchul.
RFCv1->PATCH v2: Removed limits on the -&g
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 07-08-19 13:15:55, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Idle page tracking currently does not work well in the following
> > scenario:
> > 1. mark page-A idle which was present at that time.
> > 2.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
[snip]
> > +/* Helper to get the start and end frame given a pos and count */
> > +static int page_idle_get_frames(loff_t pos, size_t count, struct mm_struct
> > *mm,
> > + unsigned long *start, unsigned long
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 04:14:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[snip]
> > > If the API is flawed then this is likely going
> > > to kick us later and will be hard to fix. I am still not convinced about
> > > the swap part of the thing TBH.
> >
> > Ok, then let us discuss it. As I mentioned before,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:08:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-08-19 20:14:38, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> > wrote:
> > > The page_idle tracking feature currently requires looking up the pagemap
> &g
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:14:30AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-08-19 10:56:20, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:00:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 07-08-19 17:31:05, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 0
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:39:05AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[snip]
> > > drivers/base/core.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > index 32cf83d1
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 08:05:40AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 05:49:17PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Check if lockdep lock checking is disabled. If so, then do not define
> > device_links_read_lock_held(). It is used only from place
: Lai Jiangshan ,
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers ,
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" ,
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" ,
Cc: r...@vger.kernel.org,
Cc: Steven Rostedt ,
Reported-by: kbuild test robot
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
drivers/base/core.c | 4 +++-
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 01:22:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:11:10PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This patch updates the documentation with information about
> > usage of lockdep with list_for_each_entry_rcu().
> >
> > Si
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:11:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:03:10 -0400
> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> > > > drivers/base/core.c | 6 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> &g
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:00:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 07-08-19 17:31:05, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:58:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:45:30 -0400 Joel Fernandes
> > > wrote:
> > >
> &
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:29:17PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
[snip]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcutiny.h b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > index 8e727f57d814..383f2481750f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > @@ -39,6 +39,11 @@ static inline void kfree_c
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:02:56AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:11:11PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Properly check if lockdep lock checking is disabled at config time. If
> > so, then lock_is_held() is undefined so don't do any che
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:11 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
wrote:
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
> checking in the caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
This patch updates the documentation with information about
usage of lockdep with list_for_each_entry_rcu().
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt | 15 +++
Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 9 -
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5
list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
checking in the caller.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions
2fee8 ("acpi: Use built-in RCU list checking for acpi_ioremaps
list")
Reported-by: kbuild test robot
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
This patch is based on the -rcu dev branch.
drivers/base/core.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/driver
CONFIG_PROVE_RCU for realistic comparisons with/without batching.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 189 +--
1 file changed, 181 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
index
5725-mutt-send-email-...@kernel.org
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/19/824
Cc: Rao Shoaib
Cc: max.byungchul.p...@gmail.com
Cc: byungchul.p...@lge.com
Cc: kernel-t...@android.com
Cc: kernel-t...@lge.com
Co-developed-by: Byungchul Park
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 05:31:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:58:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:45:30 -0400 Joel Fernandes
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:04:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrot
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:58:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 16:45:30 -0400 Joel Fernandes
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:04:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:15:54 -0400 "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:04:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:15:54 -0400 "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
> wrote:
>
> > In Android, we are using this for the heap profiler (heapprofd) which
> > profiles and pin points code paths which alloc
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:01:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 06:00:13 -0400 Joel Fernandes
> wrote:
>
> > > > 8 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Quite a lot of new code unconditionally added to major
This patch updates the documentation with the new page_idle tracking
feature which uses virtual address indexing.
Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport
Reviewed-by: Sandeep Patil
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
.../admin-guide/mm/idle_page_tracking.rst | 43 ---
1 file
ff-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
v3->v4: Minor fixups (Minchan)
Add swap pte handling (Konstantin, Minchan)
v2->v3:
Fixed a bug where I was doing a kfree that is not needed due to not
needing to do GFP_ATOMIC allocations.
v1->v2:
Mark swap ptes as idle (Minchan)
Avoid need
page tracking only
works on user pages in the LRU. Device pages should not consitute those
so it should be unused and safe to use.
Cc: Robin Murphy
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig| 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h | 1 +
arch/arm64
swap PTE (see the comment in
arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64.h). Bit 2 corresponds to _PAGE_USER. Use
it for swap PTE purposes.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h | 15 +++
arch/x86/include/asm
patch drains all CPU's pagevec before starting idle tracking.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
---
mm/page_idle.c | 21 +
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/page_idle.c b/mm/page_idle.c
index 2766d4ab348c..26440a497609 100644
--- a/mm/page_idle.c
oid's ActivityManager) to swap pages out of a process
that it knows will be cold. To an external process like a heap profiler
that is doing idle tracking on another process, this procedure will
interfere with the idle page tracking similar to the above steps.
Suggested-by: Minchan Kim
Signed-of
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 03:19:21PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> (cc Brendan's other email address, hoping for review input ;))
;)
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:04:47 -0400 "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
> wrote:
>
> > The page_idle tracking feature currently requires
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:47:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 01:57:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 06-08-19 07:14:46, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:47:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 06-
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 01:44:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[snip]
> > > > This operation even if expensive is only done once during the access of
> > > > the
> > > > page_idle file. Did you have a better fix in mind?
> > >
> > > Can we set the idle bit also for non-lru pages as long as they ar
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 01:57:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-08-19 07:14:46, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:47:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 06-08-19 06:36:27, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-08-19 20:07:37, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:47:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 06-08-19 06:36:27, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:42:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:51:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-08-19 06:45:54, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:43:57AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 05-08-19 13:04:50, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > During idle t
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:47:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-08-19 06:36:27, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:42:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 05-08-19 13:04:49, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > This bit will be u
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:56:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 05-08-19 13:04:47, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > The page_idle tracking feature currently requires looking up the pagemap
> > for a process followed by interacting with /sys/kernel/mm/page_idle.
> >
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:43:57AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 05-08-19 13:04:50, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > During idle tracking, we see that sometimes faulted anon pages are in
> > pagevec but are not drained to LRU. Idle tracking considers pages only
> > on
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:42:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 05-08-19 13:04:49, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This bit will be used by idle page tracking code to correctly identify
> > if a page that was swapped out was idle before it got swapped out.
> > Wit
1 - 100 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
