Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Date: 2013-05-03 17:48:06
Also in:
lkml, lvs-devel, netfilter-devel
Hello, On Fri, 3 May 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
OK, after getting some sleep, I might have located the root cause of
my confusion yesterday.
The key point is that I don't understand why we cannot get the effect
we are looking for with the following in sched.h (or wherever):
static inline int cond_resched_rcu(void)
{
#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) || !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
rcu_read_unlock();
cond_resched();
rcu_read_lock();
#endif
}
This adds absolutely no overhead in non-debug builds of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU,
does the checking in debug builds, and allows voluntary preemption in
!CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds. CONFIG_PROVE_RCU builds will check for an
(illegal) outer rcu_read_lock() in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds, and you
will get "scheduling while atomic" in response to an outer rcu_read_lock()
in !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds.
It also seems to me a lot simpler.
Does this work, or am I still missing something?It should work. It is a better version of the 2nd variant I mentioned here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=136741839021257&w=2 I'll stick to this version, hope Peter Zijlstra agrees. Playing with PREEMPT_ACTIVE or another bit makes the things more complex. To summarize: - CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU: - no empty functions called - CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP can catch errors even for this case - non-CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU: - rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock are barrier(), so it expands just to cond_resched() I'll repeat the tests tomorrow and if there are no problems will post official version after the merge window. Regards -- Julian Anastasov [off-list ref]