On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:26:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, time to get serious about a bit of code cleanup:
> >
> > o The heavyweight atomic operations in rcu_read_lock() and
> > rcu_read_unlock() are not needed in UP kernels, since
> > interrupts are disabled.
>
> atomic_*() ops should already be lightweight on UP.
Agreed, will worry about architectures where they might not be later.
> > o In order to get things to work in both CONFIG_PREEMPT and
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, I ended up using the following:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> >
> > #define rcu_spinlock_t _raw_spinlock_t
> > #define rcu_spin_lock(l, f) _raw_spin_lock(l)
> > #define rcu_spin_trylock(l, f) _raw_spin_trylock(l)
> > #define rcu_spin_unlock(l, f) _raw_spin_unlock(l)
> > #define RCU_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
> >
> > #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT */
> >
> > #define rcu_spinlock_t spinlock_t
> > #define rcu_spin_lock(l, f) spin_lock_irqsave(l, f)
> > #define rcu_spin_trylock(l, f) spin_trylock_irqsave(l, f)
> > #define rcu_spin_unlock(l, f) spin_unlock_irqrestore(l, f)
> > #define RCU_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
> >
> > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT */
> >
> > Then using rcu_spin_lock() &c everywhere. The problem is
> > that (as near as I can tell) the only way to prevent interrupts
> > from running on the current CPU in CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels is
> > to use the _irq spinlock primitives, but _raw_spin_lock() does
> > the job in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (since interrupts are run in process
> > context, right). I could use _irq in both, but that would
> > unnecessarily degrade interrupt latency in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT.
> >
> > Suggestions???
>
> in PREEMPT_RT, if you define a spinlock type as raw_spinlock_t (via
> DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(lock)) then the spin_lock*() APIs automatically
> switch over to that type. I.e. no need to do the rcu_ stuff AFAICT.
> (unless i missed some detail about what you are trying to do.) Raw
> spinlocks under PREEMPT_RT pair with the raw IRQ flag, i.e.
> spin_lock_irq() will disable hard interrupts. Generally i'd suggest to
> go for the raw spinlock and raw-irq-flag-disabling variant, because RCU
> locking is core enough functionality to warrant atomic treatment. If
> there's any latency path in it, we can work on breaking it up later.
Fair enough!
The thing I am (perhaps foolishly) trying to do is get to a single
source base that provides PREEMPT_RCU under both CONFIG_PREEMPT and
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT. Since you are OK with RCU disabling interrupts,
I am happy.
> it's perfectly fine to disable raw interrupts with the RCU code, as long
> as you do O(1) amount of work. (where the constant factor isnt 2^(2^32)
> ;-)
Will try to keep it down to a dull roar. ;-)
> > Some remaining shortcomings of the current code:
> >
> > o Untested on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (working on this, suggestions
> > for 4-CPU-stable CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT versions most welcome).
>
> latest (-51-28) has no known regressions, and i regularly boot on 4-way
> (and irregularly on 8-way) boxes. So if you see something strange on the
> latest -RT kernel, please report it.
And stock -51-7 just passed nine rounds of kernbench + LTP on some 4-CPU
x86 machines, with one still running. Good stuff!!!
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |