Re: [tip:perf/core] perf: Per-pmu-per-cpu contexts

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:46:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 08:37 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > So, you say below that it works because synchronize_srcu(), that
> > > waits for qs after touching pmus, implies synchronize_sched(), right?
> > 
> > Ook...  My current plans to fold SRCU into TREE_RCU would invalidate
> > this assumption.
> > 
> > Maybe we need some sort of primitive that concurrently waits for
> > multiple types of RCU grace periods? 
> 
> Nah, but I was thinking that any kind of preemptible rcu sync would
> imply a sched rcu sync.

Ah!

Although disabling interrupts will block preemptible RCU grace periods
in current implementations (but please don't rely on this!), disabling
preemption will -not- block preemptible RCU grace periods, even given
current TREE_PREEMPT_RCU and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU implementations.  Current
SRCU grace periods are blocked by disabling preemption, but folding it
into the tree/tiny implementations would make SRCU grace periods be no
longer blocked by disabling preemption.

This might change if RCU priority boosting is enabled, due to RCU
grace-period computation and callback invocation moving to a kthread,
but I won't have the guts to make TREE_RCU use kthread by default for
some time.  (Probably a year or so trouble-free experience with RCU
priority boosting/kthreads.)

> If not strictly implied I'd have no problem simply writing:
> 
>   synchronize_rcu_sched();
>   synchronize_srcu();

If that works for you, then we are set!  The only reason to introduce
a combined primitive would be if the latency of the above was too large.

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