LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, fweisbec <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	baohong liu <baohong.liu@intel.com>,
	vedang patel <vedang.patel@intel.com>,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 3/4] irqflags: Avoid unnecessary calls to trace_ if you can
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:35:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180425213539.GA26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+orWC=W0Jn2Jo7f+u5mbHMi+D1yuCmhD-xSgjWZ6Ynw32Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:27:08PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> [..]
> >> >
> >> > Sounds good, thanks.
> >> >
> >> > Also I found the reason for my boot issue. It was because the
> >> > init_srcu_struct in the prototype was being done in an initcall.
> >> > Instead if I do it in start_kernel before the tracepoint is used, it
> >> > fixes it (although I don't know if this is dangerous to do like this
> >> > but I can get it to boot atleast.. Let me know if this isn't the
> >> > right way to do it, or if something else could go wrong)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> >> > index 34823072ef9e..ecc88319c6da 100644
> >> > --- a/init/main.c
> >> > +++ b/init/main.c
> >> > @@ -631,6 +631,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init start_kernel(void)
> >> >         WARN(!irqs_disabled(), "Interrupts were enabled early\n");
> >> >         early_boot_irqs_disabled = false;
> >> >
> >> > +       init_srcu_struct(&tracepoint_srcu);
> >> >         lockdep_init_early();
> >> >
> >> >         local_irq_enable();
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > I benchmarked it and the performance also looks quite good compared
> >> > to the rcu tracepoint version.
> >> >
> >> > If you, Paul and other think doing the init_srcu_struct like this
> >> > should be Ok, then I can try to work more on your srcu prototype and
> >> > roll into my series and post them in the next RFC series (or let me
> >> > know if you wanted to work your srcu stuff in a separate series..).
> >>
> >> That is definitely not what I was expecting, but let's see if it works
> >> anyway...  ;-)
> >>
> >> But first, I was instead expecting something like this:
> >>
> >> DEFINE_SRCU(tracepoint_srcu);
> >>
> >> With this approach, some of the initialization happens at compile time
> >> and the rest happens at the first call_srcu().
> >>
> >> This will work -only- if the first call_srcu() doesn't happen until after
> >> workqueue_init_early() has been invoked.  Which I believe must have been
> >> the case in your testing, because otherwise it looks like __call_srcu()
> >> would have complained bitterly.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, if you need to invoke call_srcu() before the call
> >> to workqueue_init_early(), then you need the patch that I am beating
> >> into shape.  Plus you would need to use DEFINE_SRCU() and to avoid
> >> invoking init_srcu_struct().
> >
> > And here is the patch.  I do not intend to send it upstream unless it
> > actually proves necessary, and it appears that current SRCU does what
> > you need.
> >
> > You would only need this patch if you wanted to invoke call_srcu()
> > before workqueue_init_early() was called, which does not seem likely.
> 
> Cool. So I was chatting with Paul and just to update everyone as well,
> I tried the DEFINE_SRCU instead of the late init_srcu_struct call and
> can make it past boot too (thanks Paul!). Also I don't see a reason we
> need the RCU callback to execute early and its fine if it runs later.

Very good, thank you!

> Also, I was thinking of introducing a separate trace_*event*_srcu API
> as a replacement to the _rcuidle API. Then I can make use of it for my
> tracepoints, and then later can use it for the other tracepoints
> needing _rcuidle. After that we can finally get rid of the _rcuidle
> API if there are no other users of it. This is just a rough plan, but
> let me know if there's any issue with this plan that you can think
> off.

You mean make _rcuidle use SRCU instead of RCU?  Sounds reasonable to me.

> IMO, I believe its simpler if the caller worries about whether it can
> tolerate if tracepoint probes can block or not, than making it a
> property of the tracepoint. That would also simplify the patch to
> introduce srcu and keep the tracepoint creation API simple and less
> confusing, but let me know if I'm missing something about this.

If it helps, you can use synchronize_rcu_mult() to wait for several
different types of RCU grace periods concurrently.  Of course,
if it is fast enough to just do a synchronize_rcu() followed by a
synchronize_srcu(), why worry?

							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-25 21:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-17  4:07 [RFC v4 0/4] Centralize and unify usage of preempt/irq tracepoints Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17  4:07 ` [RFC v4 1/4] tracepoint: Add API to not do lockdep checks during RCU ops Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17  4:07 ` [RFC v4 2/4] softirq: reorder trace_softirqs_on to prevent lockdep splat Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17  4:07 ` [RFC v4 3/4] irqflags: Avoid unnecessary calls to trace_ if you can Joel Fernandes
2018-04-18  9:02   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-04-19  5:43     ` Namhyung Kim
2018-04-20  7:07       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-23  1:14         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-23  3:19           ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-23 14:31             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-23 14:53               ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-23 14:59                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-23 15:12                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-23 16:18                   ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-23 17:12                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-23 17:24                       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-23 21:22                       ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-24 15:56                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 16:01                           ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 17:26                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 18:23                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 18:26                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 18:59                                   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 19:01                                     ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 19:09                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-24 19:16                                       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-24 23:21                                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-24 23:46                                       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-25  0:10                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-25  4:20                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-25 21:27                                             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-25 21:35                                               ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-04-25 21:40                                               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-25 22:51                                                 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-26 15:03                                                   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-26 16:08                                                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-25 23:13                                                 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-26 15:13                                                   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-04-26 15:20                                                     ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-26 15:49                                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-23 15:49                 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-26  2:18             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-01  1:18     ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-17  4:07 ` [RFC v4 4/4] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage Joel Fernandes

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=20180425213539.GA26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=baohong.liu@intel.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=vedang.patel@intel.com \
    --subject='Re: [RFC v4 3/4] irqflags: Avoid unnecessary calls to trace_ if you can' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).