From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, frederic@kernel.org, urezki@gmail.com,
quic_neeraju@quicinc.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rcu: Only boost rcu reader tasks with lower priority than boost kthreads
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:09:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yist4IWWR/6BZzeK@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220311022226.595905-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
On 2022-03-11 10:22:26 [+0800], Zqiang wrote:
> When RCU_BOOST is enabled, the boost kthreads will boosting readers
> who are blocking a given grace period, if the current reader tasks
^ Period.
> have a higher priority than boost kthreads(the boost kthreads priority
> not always 1, if the kthread_prio is set),
This confuses me:
- Why does this matter
- If it is not RT prio, what is then? Higher or lower? Afaik it is
always >= 1.
> boosting is useless, skip
> current task and select next task to boosting, reduce the time for a
> given grace period.
So if the task, that is stuck in a rcu_read() section, has a higher
priority than the boosting thread then boosting is futile. Understood.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but this is intended for !SCHED_OTHER
tasks since there shouldn't a be PI chain on boost_mtx so that its
default RT priority is boosted above what has been configured.
You skip boosting tasks which are itself already boosted due to a PI
chain. Once that PI boost is lifted the task may still be in a RCU
section. But if I understand you right, your intention is skip boosting
tasks with a higher priority and concentrate and those which are in
need. This shouldn't make a difference unless the scheduler is able to
move the rcu-boosted task to another CPU.
Am I right so far? If so this should be part of the commit message (the
intention and the result). Also, please add that part with
boost_exp_tasks. The comment above boost_mtx is now above
boost_exp_tasks with a space so it looks (at least to me) like these two
don't belong together.
> Suggested-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-11 11:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-11 2:22 Zqiang
2022-03-11 11:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2022-03-12 2:57 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2022-03-12 3:11 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2022-03-16 16:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-03-18 5:50 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2022-03-18 14:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-03-30 19:35 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-03-30 20:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yist4IWWR/6BZzeK@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=qiang1.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®