On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:06:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:38:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Please let me try again.
> >
> > The approach you are suggesting, clever though it is, disables a check
>
>
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:06:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:38:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Please let me try again.
> >
> > The approach you are suggesting, clever though it is, disables a check
>
>
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:38:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Please let me try again.
>
> The approach you are suggesting, clever though it is, disables a check
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180627094633.gg2...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Is the one we're talking about, right?
That
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:38:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Please let me try again.
>
> The approach you are suggesting, clever though it is, disables a check
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180627094633.gg2...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Is the one we're talking about, right?
That
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:26:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:13:34PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > Another variant,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:26:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:13:34PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > Another variant,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:13:34PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Another variant, which simply skips the wakeup whever ran on an offline
> > > > CPU,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:13:34PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Another variant, which simply skips the wakeup whever ran on an offline
> > > > CPU,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Another variant, which simply skips the wakeup whever ran on an offline
> > > CPU, relying on the wakeup from rcutree_migrate_callbacks() right after
> > > the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Another variant, which simply skips the wakeup whever ran on an offline
> > > CPU, relying on the wakeup from rcutree_migrate_callbacks() right after
> > > the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Another variant, which simply skips the wakeup whever ran on an offline
> > CPU, relying on the wakeup from rcutree_migrate_callbacks() right after
> > the CPU really is dead.
>
> Cute! ;-)
>
> And a much smaller change.
>
>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Another variant, which simply skips the wakeup whever ran on an offline
> > CPU, relying on the wakeup from rcutree_migrate_callbacks() right after
> > the CPU really is dead.
>
> Cute! ;-)
>
> And a much smaller change.
>
>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:46:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The options I have considered are as follows:
> >
> > > 2.Stick with the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:46:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The options I have considered are as follows:
> >
> > > 2.Stick with the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The options I have considered are as follows:
>
> > 2. Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but rely on RCU's grace-period
> > kthread to wake up later due
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The options I have considered are as follows:
>
> > 2. Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but rely on RCU's grace-period
> > kthread to wake up later due
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:33:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The options I have considered are as follows:
> >
> > 1. Stick with the no-failsafe approach, adding the lock as shown
> > in this patch. (I obviously
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:33:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The options I have considered are as follows:
> >
> > 1. Stick with the no-failsafe approach, adding the lock as shown
> > in this patch. (I obviously
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The options I have considered are as follows:
>
> > 2. Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but rely on RCU's grace-period
> > kthread to wake up later due
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The options I have considered are as follows:
>
> > 2. Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but rely on RCU's grace-period
> > kthread to wake up later due
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The options I have considered are as follows:
> 2.Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but rely on RCU's grace-period
> kthread to wake up later due to its timed wait during the
> force-quiescent-state process.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The options I have considered are as follows:
> 2.Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but rely on RCU's grace-period
> kthread to wake up later due to its timed wait during the
> force-quiescent-state process.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The options I have considered are as follows:
>
> 1.Stick with the no-failsafe approach, adding the lock as shown
> in this patch. (I obviously prefer this approach.)
>
> 2.Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:40:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The options I have considered are as follows:
>
> 1.Stick with the no-failsafe approach, adding the lock as shown
> in this patch. (I obviously prefer this approach.)
>
> 2.Stick with the no-failsafe approach, but
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:32:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:26:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > commit 2e5b2ff4047b138d6b56e4e3ba91bc47503cdebe
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney
> > Date: Fri May 25 19:23:09 2018 -0700
> >
> > rcu: Fix grace-period hangs
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:32:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:26:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > commit 2e5b2ff4047b138d6b56e4e3ba91bc47503cdebe
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney
> > Date: Fri May 25 19:23:09 2018 -0700
> >
> > rcu: Fix grace-period hangs
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:19:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The initial reason for cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp was that
> > some of the fields can be accessed by random CPUs, while others are
> > used more
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:19:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The initial reason for cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp was that
> > some of the fields can be accessed by random CPUs, while others are
> > used more
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:26:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> commit 2e5b2ff4047b138d6b56e4e3ba91bc47503cdebe
> Author: Paul E. McKenney
> Date: Fri May 25 19:23:09 2018 -0700
>
> rcu: Fix grace-period hangs due to race with CPU offline
>
> Without special fail-safe
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:26:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> commit 2e5b2ff4047b138d6b56e4e3ba91bc47503cdebe
> Author: Paul E. McKenney
> Date: Fri May 25 19:23:09 2018 -0700
>
> rcu: Fix grace-period hangs due to race with CPU offline
>
> Without special fail-safe
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:29:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> > > hangs can
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:29:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> > > hangs can
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:29:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> > > hangs can
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:29:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> > > hangs can
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:19:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The initial reason for cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp was that
> some of the fields can be accessed by random CPUs, while others are
> used more locally, give or take our usual contention over the handling
> of CPU numbers.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:19:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The initial reason for cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp was that
> some of the fields can be accessed by random CPUs, while others are
> used more locally, give or take our usual contention over the handling
> of CPU numbers.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> > hangs can result from the following scenario:
> >
> > 1. CPU 1 goes offline.
> >
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> > hangs can result from the following scenario:
> >
> > 1. CPU 1 goes offline.
> >
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:44:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > index 3def94fc9c74..6683da6e4ecc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > @@
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:44:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > index 3def94fc9c74..6683da6e4ecc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > @@
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> hangs can result from the following scenario:
>
> 1.CPU 1 goes offline.
>
> 2.Because CPU 1 is the only CPU in the system blocking the current
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> hangs can result from the following scenario:
>
> 1.CPU 1 goes offline.
>
> 2.Because CPU 1 is the only CPU in the system blocking the current
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> index 3def94fc9c74..6683da6e4ecc 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> @@ -363,6 +363,10 @@ struct rcu_state {
> const char *name;
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> index 3def94fc9c74..6683da6e4ecc 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> @@ -363,6 +363,10 @@ struct rcu_state {
> const char *name;
Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
hangs can result from the following scenario:
1. CPU 1 goes offline.
2. Because CPU 1 is the only CPU in the system blocking the current
grace period, as soon as rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu()'s call to
Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
hangs can result from the following scenario:
1. CPU 1 goes offline.
2. Because CPU 1 is the only CPU in the system blocking the current
grace period, as soon as rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu()'s call to
46 matches
Mail list logo
