Re: [RFC v1 00/14] Implement call_rcu_lazy() and miscellaneous fixes

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

 



On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:04 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
<joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello!
> Please find the proof of concept version of call_rcu_lazy() attached. This
> gives a lot of savings when the CPUs are relatively idle. Huge thanks to
> Rushikesh Kadam from Intel for investigating it with me.
>
> Some numbers below:
>
> Following are power savings we see on top of RCU_NOCB_CPU on an Intel platform.
> The observation is that due to a 'trickle down' effect of RCU callbacks, the
> system is very lightly loaded but constantly running few RCU callbacks very
> often. This confuses the power management hardware that the system is active,
> when it is in fact idle.
>
> For example, when ChromeOS screen is off and user is not doing anything on the
> system, we can see big power savings.
> Before:
> Pk%pc10 = 72.13
> PkgWatt = 0.58
> CorWatt = 0.04
>
> After:
> Pk%pc10 = 81.28
> PkgWatt = 0.41
> CorWatt = 0.03
>
> Further, when ChromeOS screen is ON but system is idle or lightly loaded, we
> can see that the display pipeline is constantly doing RCU callback queuing due
> to open/close of file descriptors associated with graphics buffers. This is
> attributed to the file_free_rcu() path which this patch series also touches.
>
> This patch series adds a simple but effective, and lockless implementation of
> RCU callback batching. On memory pressure, timeout or queue growing too big, we
> initiate a flush of one or more per-CPU lists.
>
> Similar results can be achieved by increasing jiffies_till_first_fqs, however
> that also has the effect of slowing down RCU. Especially I saw huge slow down
> of function graph tracer when increasing that.
>
> One drawback of this series is, if another frequent RCU callback creeps up in
> the future, that's not lazy, then that will again hurt the power. However, I
> believe identifying and fixing those is a more reasonable approach than slowing
> RCU down for the whole system.
>
> NOTE: Add debug patch is added in the series toggle /proc/sys/kernel/rcu_lazy
> at runtime to turn it on or off globally. It is default to on. Further, please
> use the sysctls in lazy.c for further tuning of parameters that effect the
> flushing.
>
> Disclaimer 1: Don't boot your personal system on it yet anticipating power
> savings, as TREE07 still causes RCU stalls and I am looking more into that, but
> I believe this series should be good for general testing.
>
> Disclaimer 2: I have intentionally not CC'd other subsystem maintainers (like
> net, fs) to keep noise low and will CC them in the future after 1 or 2 rounds
> of review and agreements.

I did forget to add Disclaimer 3, that this breaks rcu_barrier() and
support for that definitely needs work.

thanks,

 - Joel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux