On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:24:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:39:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:41:34PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:30:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:25:20 -0400
> > > > Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I am sorry if this is not a realistic real-life problem, but more a
> > > > > "doctor it hurts if I do this" problem as Steven once said ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll keep poking ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Hi Joel,
> > > >
> > > > Can you also share the tests you are performing as well as any
> > > > module/code changes you made so that we can duplicate the results?
> > >
> > > Sure thing. Below is the diff that I applied to Paul's /dev branch. But I
> > > believe Linus's tree should have same results.
> > >
> > > After applying the diff below, I run it like this:
> > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --bootargs rcuperf.pd_test=1 rcuperf.pd_busy_wait=5000 rcuperf.holdout=5 rcuperf.pd_resched=0 --duration 1 --torture rcuperf
> > >
> > > Some new options I added:
> > > pd_test=1 runs the preempt disable loop test
> > > pd_busy_wait is the busy wait time each pass through the loop in microseconds
> > > pd_resched is whether the loop should set the need-resched flag periodically.
> > >
> > > If your qemu is a bit old or from debian, then you may also need to pass: --qemu-args "-net nic,model=e1000"
> > >
> > > With pd_resched = 0, I get quite high average grace-period latencies. The
> > > preempt-disable loop thread is running on its own CPU. Enabling the rcu:*
> > > tracepoints, I see that for long periods of time, the FQS rcu loop can be
> > > running while the scheduler tick learns from rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() that
> > > there's nothing to worry about (at least this is what I remember tracing).
> > >
> > > With pd_resched = 0, the output of the command above:
> > > Average grace-period duration: 195629 microseconds
> > > Minimum grace-period duration: 30111.7
> > > 50th percentile grace-period duration: 211000
> > > 90th percentile grace-period duration: 218000
> > > 99th percentile grace-period duration: 222999
> > > Maximum grace-period duration: 236351
> > >
> > > With pd_resched = 1, you get more like twice (10ms) the busy-wait time (5ms).
> > > I wonder why its twice, but that's still Ok. It is as follows:
> > > Average grace-period duration: 12302.2 microseconds
> > > Minimum grace-period duration: 5998.35
> > > 50th percentile grace-period duration: 12000.4
> > > 90th percentile grace-period duration: 15996.4
> > > 99th percentile grace-period duration: 18000.6
> > > Maximum grace-period duration: 20998.6
> >
> > Both of these results are within the design range for normal
> > RCU grace-period durations on busy systems. See the code in
> > adjust_jiffies_till_sched_qs(), which is setting one of the "panic
> > durations" at which RCU starts taking more aggressive actions to end
> > the current grace period. See especially:
> >
> > if (j < HZ / 10 + nr_cpu_ids / RCU_JIFFIES_FQS_DIV)
> > j = HZ / 10 + nr_cpu_ids / RCU_JIFFIES_FQS_DIV;
> > pr_info("RCU calculated value of scheduler-enlistment delay is %ld jiffies.\n", j);
> > WRITE_ONCE(jiffies_to_sched_qs, j);
> >
> > This usually gets you about 100 milliseconds, and if you are starting
> > grace periods in quick succession from a single thread while other threads
> > are doing likewise, each grace-period wait gets to wait about two grace
> > periods worth due to the end of the previous grace period having started
> > a new grace period before the thread is awakened.
> >
> > Of course, if this is causing trouble for some use case, it would not
> > be hard to create a tunable to override this panic duration. But that
> > would of course require a real use case in real use, given that RCU isn't
> > exactly short on tunables at the moment. Significantly shortening this
> > panic duration caused 0day to complain about slowness last I tried it,
> > just so you know.
>
> Thanks a lot for the explanation.
> Indeed this code in the tick is doing a good job and I just had to drop
> jiffies_till_first_fqs to bring down the latencies. With a
> jiffies_till_first_fqs of 50 instead of the default of 100, the latencies
> drop by 4 fold.
You lost me on this one. The normal value of jiffies_till_first_fqs
is but three, for systems with 255 or fewer CPUs and HZ=1000. So I
have to ask... What did you do to get jiffies_till_first_fqs=100?
The normal default automatic settings would need something like 8,000
CPUs to get it up to that level.
Or did you instead mean replacing the "HZ / 10" in the code snippet
above with "HZ / 20" or similar?
Or did you mean jiffies_to_sched_qs instead of jiffies_till_first_fqs?
-That- does default to 100, and you could set it using the
rcutree.jiffies_to_sched_qs kernel boot parameter. But even then, I
must admit that I would naively expect halving jiffies_till_first_fqs to
halve the latencies. But I have not looked at it closely, and there are
lots of moving parts in RCU's grace-period encouragement code, so maybe
that is the effect.
> In the tick:
> if (smp_load_acquire(this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs))) {
> /* Idle and userspace execution already are quiescent states. */
> if (!rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() && !user) {
> set_preempt_need_resched(); <--------\
> set_tsk_need_resched(current); <------- the preempt
> count test loop
> stands no chance!
> }
> __this_cpu_write(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs, false);
> }
You got it! That is indeed where it sets resched.
But if I understand what your preempt-count test loop consists of, RCU
would have a tough time with it in a CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernel.
Thanx, Paul
> Appreciate it! thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
