[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] xen/rcu: let rcu work better with core scheduling

On 02.03.20 14:25, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 28/02/2020 07:10, Jürgen Groß wrote:

I think you are just narrowing the window of the race:

It is still possible to have two cpus entering rcu_barrier() and to
make it into the if ( !initial ) clause.

Instead of introducing another atomic I believe the following patch
instead of yours should do it:

diff --git a/xen/common/rcupdate.c b/xen/common/rcupdate.c
index e6add0b120..0d5469a326 100644
--- a/xen/common/rcupdate.c
+++ b/xen/common/rcupdate.c
@@ -180,23 +180,17 @@ static void rcu_barrier_action(void)

  void rcu_barrier(void)
-    int initial = atomic_read(&cpu_count);
      while ( !get_cpu_maps() )
-        if ( initial && !atomic_read(&cpu_count) )
+        if ( !atomic_read(&cpu_count) )

-        initial = atomic_read(&cpu_count);

-    if ( !initial )
-    {
-        atomic_set(&cpu_count, num_online_cpus());
+    if ( atomic_cmpxchg(&cpu_count, 0, num_online_cpus()) == 0 )
          cpumask_raise_softirq(&cpu_online_map, RCU_SOFTIRQ);
-    }

      while ( atomic_read(&cpu_count) )

Could you give that a try, please?

With this patch I cannot disable SMT at all.

The problem that my diff solved was a race between 2 consecutive
rcu_barrier operations on CPU0 (the pattern specific to SMT-on/off
operation) where some CPUs didn't exit the cpu_count checking loop
completely but cpu_count is already reinitialized on CPU0 - this
results in some CPUs being stuck in the loop.

Ah, okay, then I believe a combination of the two patches is needed.

Something like the attached version?


Attachment: 0002-xen-rcu-don-t-use-stop_machine_run-for-rcu_barrier.patch
Description: Text Data

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.