On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 09:31:37AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:20:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index 368749008ae8..2c8d4c3e341e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:20:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 368749008ae8..2c8d4c3e341e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static int rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle(void)
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:56:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 07:12:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Subject: rcu: Allow for smp_call_function() running callbacks from idle
> >
> > Current RCU hard relies on smp_call_function() callbacks running from
> > interrupt
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 07:12:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: rcu: Allow for smp_call_function() running callbacks from idle
>
> Current RCU hard relies on smp_call_function() callbacks running from
> interrupt context. A pending optimization is going to break that, it
> will allow
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:11:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +void flush_smp_call_function_from_idle(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + if (llist_empty(this_cpu_ptr(_single_queue)))
> + return;
Now it seems weird that sched_ttwu_pending() didn't have that
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:39:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 07:12:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:35:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Right, I went though them, didn't find anything obvious amiss. OK, let
> > > me do a nicer
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 07:12:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:35:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Right, I went though them, didn't find anything obvious amiss. OK, let
> > me do a nicer patch.
>
> something like so then?
>
> ---
> Subject: rcu: Allow for
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:35:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Right, I went though them, didn't find anything obvious amiss. OK, let
> me do a nicer patch.
something like so then?
---
Subject: rcu: Allow for smp_call_function() running callbacks from idle
Current RCU hard relies on
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:56:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:15:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > At first glance, something like the below could work. But obviously I
> > might have overlooked something more subtle than a brick :-)
>
> This can work, but
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:15:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:56:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > This is rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle()'s lockdep_assert_in_irq() tripping
> > up (it's comment is obviously a bit antiquated).
> >
> > Now, if I read that code
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:56:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> This is rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle()'s lockdep_assert_in_irq() tripping
> up (it's comment is obviously a bit antiquated).
>
> Now, if I read that code correctly, it actually relies on
> rcu_irq_enter() and thus really wants to be
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:11:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Just like the ttwu_queue_remote() IPI, make use of _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG
> to avoid sending IPIs to idle CPUs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 10 ++
> kernel/sched/idle.c |1
Just like the ttwu_queue_remote() IPI, make use of _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG
to avoid sending IPIs to idle CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 10 ++
kernel/sched/idle.c |1 +
kernel/sched/sched.h |2 ++
kernel/smp.c | 16
13 matches
Mail list logo
