On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:40:56PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:55:03PM -0700, Yan Zhai wrote:
> > There are several scenario in network processing that can run
> > extensively under heavy traffic. In such situation, RCU synchronization
> > might not observe desired quiescent states for indefinitely long period.
> > Create a helper to safely raise the desired RCU quiescent states for
> > such scenario.
> >
> > Currently the frequency is locked at HZ/10, i.e. 100ms, which is
> > sufficient to address existing problems around RCU tasks. It's unclear
> > yet if there is any future scenario for it to be further tuned down.
>
> I suggest something like the following for the commit log:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> When under heavy load, network processing can run CPU-bound for many tens
> of seconds. Even in preemptible kernels, this can block RCU Tasks grace
> periods, which can cause trace-event removal to take more than a minute,
> which is unacceptably long.
>
> This commit therefore creates a new helper function that passes
> through both RCU and RCU-Tasks quiescent states every 100 milliseconds.
> This hard-coded value suffices for current workloads.
FWIW, this sounds good to me.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhai <yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v3->v4: comment fixup
> >
> > ---
> > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > index 0746b1b0b663..da224706323e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -247,6 +247,30 @@ do { \
> > cond_resched(); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > +/**
> > + * rcu_softirq_qs_periodic - Periodically report consolidated quiescent states
> > + * @old_ts: last jiffies when QS was reported. Might be modified in the macro.
> > + *
> > + * This helper is for network processing in non-RT kernels, where there could
> > + * be busy polling threads that block RCU synchronization indefinitely. In
> > + * such context, simply calling cond_resched is insufficient, so give it a
> > + * stronger push to eliminate all potential blockage of all RCU types.
> > + *
> > + * NOTE: unless absolutely sure, this helper should in general be called
> > + * outside of bh lock section to avoid reporting a surprising QS to updaters,
> > + * who could be expecting RCU read critical section to end at local_bh_enable().
> > + */
>
> How about something like this for the kernel-doc comment?
>
> /**
> * rcu_softirq_qs_periodic - Report RCU and RCU-Tasks quiescent states
> * @old_ts: jiffies at start of processing.
> *
> * This helper is for long-running softirq handlers, such as those
> * in networking. The caller should initialize the variable passed in
> * as @old_ts at the beginning of the softirq handler. When invoked
> * frequently, this macro will invoke rcu_softirq_qs() every 100
> * milliseconds thereafter, which will provide both RCU and RCU-Tasks
> * quiescent states. Note that this macro modifies its old_ts argument.
> *
> * Note that although cond_resched() provides RCU quiescent states,
> * it does not provide RCU-Tasks quiescent states.
> *
> * Because regions of code that have disabled softirq act as RCU
> * read-side critical sections, this macro should be invoked with softirq
> * (and preemption) enabled.
> *
> * This macro has no effect in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernels.
> */
Considering the note about cond_resched(), does does cond_resched() actually
provide an RCU quiescent state for fully-preemptible kernels? IIUC for those
cond_resched() expands to:
__might_resched();
klp_sched_try_switch()
... and AFAICT neither reports an RCU quiescent state.
So maybe it's worth dropping the note?
Seperately, what's the rationale for not doing this on PREEMPT_RT? Does that
avoid the problem through other means, or are people just not running effected
workloads on that?
Mark.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > +#define rcu_softirq_qs_periodic(old_ts) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && \
> > + time_after(jiffies, (old_ts) + HZ / 10)) { \
> > + preempt_disable(); \
> > + rcu_softirq_qs(); \
> > + preempt_enable(); \
> > + (old_ts) = jiffies; \
> > + } \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> > /*
> > * Infrastructure to implement the synchronize_() primitives in
> > * TREE_RCU and rcu_barrier_() primitives in TINY_RCU.
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >
> >
