Re: [RFC, PATCH, -rt] Early prototype RCU priority-boost patch

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:38:33PM +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> Hi,
>  I have considered an idea to make this work with the PI: Add the ability 
> to at a waiter not refering to a lock to the PI list. I think a few 
> subsystems can use that if they temporarely want to boost a task in a 
> consistend way (HR-timers is one). After a little renaming getting the 
> boosting part seperated out of rt_mutex_waiter:
> 
>  struct prio_booster {
> 	struct plist_node	booster_list_entry;
>  };
> 
>  void add_prio_booster(struct task_struct *, struct prio_booster *booster);
>  void remove_prio_booster(struct task_struct *, struct prio_booster 
> *booster);
>  void change_prio_booster(struct task_struct *, struct prio_booster 
> *booster, int new_prio);
> 
> (these functions takes care of doing/triggering a lock chain traversal if 
> needed) and change
> 
>  struct rt_mutext_waiter {
>     ...
>     struct prio_booster booster;
>     ...
>  };

I must defer to Ingo, Thomas, and Steve Rostedt on what the right thing
to do is here, but I do much appreciate the pointers!

If I understand what you are getting at, this is what I would need to
do to in order to have a synchronize_rcu() priority-boost RCU readers?
Or is this what I need to legitimately priority-boost RCU readers in
any case (for example, to properly account for other boosting and
deboosting that might happen while the RCU reader is priority boosted)?

Here are the RCU priority-boost situations I see:

1.	"Out of nowhere" RCU-reader priority boost.  This is what
	the patch I submitted was intended to cover.  If I need your
	prio_booster struct in this case, then I would need to put
	one in the task structure, right?

	Would another be needed to handle a second boost?  My guess
	is that the first could be reused.

2.	RCU reader boosting a lock holder.  This ends up being a
	combination of #1 (because the act of blocking on a lock implies
	an "out of nowhere" priority boost) and normal lock boosting.

3.	A call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu() boosting all readers.  I am
	not sure we really need this, but in case we do...  One would
	need an additional prio_booster for each task to be boosted,
	right?  This would seem to require an additional prio_booster
	struct in each task structure.

Or am I off the mark here?

> There are issues with lock orderings between task->pi_lock (which should 
> be renamed to task->prio_lock) and rq->lock. The lock ordering probably 
> have to be reversed, thus integrating the boosting system directly into 
> the scheduler instead of into rtmutex-subsystem.

This does sound a bit scary.  What exactly am I adding that would motivate
inverting the lock ordering?

							Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/