On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:05:57AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 6:48 AM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 04:16:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:12 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:36 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:08 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:48:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You guys might need to agree on the definition of "good" here. Or maybe > > > > > > > > > > > understand the differences in your respective platforms' definitions of > > > > > > > > > > > "good". ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. Bad is when once per-millisecond infinitely :) At least in such use > > > > > > > > > > workload a can detect a power delta and power gain. Anyway, below is a new > > > > > > > > > > trace where i do not use "flush" variant for the kvfree_rcu(): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Home screen swipe: > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1792.767750: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1003 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 1792.771717: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=934 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/3-40 [001] d..1 1794.811816: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1508 bl=11 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/1-26 [003] d..1 1797.116382: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2127 bl=16 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/4-48 [001] d..1 1797.124422: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=95 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [002] d..1 1797.124731: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=143 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [005] d..1 1798.911719: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=132 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 1803.003966: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3797 bl=29 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1803.004707: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2969 bl=23 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. App launches: > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/4-48 [005] d..1 1831.087612: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6141 bl=47 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/7-69 [007] d..1 1831.095578: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5464 bl=42 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1832.703571: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8461 bl=66 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [004] d..1 1833.731603: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2548 bl=19 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/1-26 [006] d..1 1833.743691: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2567 bl=20 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [006] d..1 1833.744005: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2359 bl=18 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/3-40 [006] d..1 1833.744286: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3681 bl=28 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/4-48 [002] d..1 1838.079777: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10444 bl=81 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/7-69 [001] d..1 1838.080375: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=12572 bl=98 > > > > > > > > > > <...>-62 [002] d..1 1838.080646: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=14135 bl=110 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [000] d..1 1838.087722: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10839 bl=84 > > > > > > > > > > <...>-62 [003] d..1 1839.227022: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1834 bl=14 > > > > > > > > > > <...>-26 [001] d..1 1839.963315: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5769 bl=45 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [001] d..1 1839.966485: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3789 bl=29 > > > > > > > > > > <...>-40 [001] d..1 1839.966596: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6425 bl=50 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1840.541272: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=825 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1840.547724: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=44 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1841.075759: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=516 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [002] d..1 1841.695716: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6312 bl=49 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1841.709714: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=39 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1843.112442: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=16007 bl=125 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1843.115444: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=7901 bl=61 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [001] dn.1 1843.123983: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8427 bl=65 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [006] d..1 1843.412383: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=981 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1844.659812: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1851 bl=14 > > > > > > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1844.667790: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=135 bl=10 > > > > > > > > > > > > Definitely better, but I'd still ask why not just rely on the lazy > > > > > > batching that we now have, since it is a memory pressure related > > > > > > usecase. Or another approach could be, for CONFIG_RCU_LAZY, don't > > > > > > disturb the lazy-RCU batching by queuing these "free memory" CBs; and > > > > > > instead keep your improved kvfree_rcu() batching only for > > > > > > !CONFIG_RCU_LAZY. > > > > > > > > > > Given that making the kvfree_rcu()-level batching conditional on > > > > > CONFIG_RCU_LAZY would complicate the code, what bad thing happens when > > > > > keeping the kvfree_rcu-level batching unconditionally? > > > > > > > > The bad thing happening is power impact. There is a noticeable impact > > > > in our testing, and when we dropped this particular patch, it got much > > > > better results. > > > > > > > > I also run rcutop and I see without the patch that I have several > > > > seconds of laziness at a time, unlike with the patch. > > > > > > > > Even in the beginning when I came up with an implementation for > > > > call_rcu_lazy(), I had to mark queue_rcu_work() as lazy as well since > > > > it was quite frequent (on ChromeOS). But when we introduced the > > > > flush() API, I forgot to not use flush() on it. But unfortunately > > > > this patch slipped into my last series when Vlad and I were debugging > > > > the SCSI issue, and did not really help for the SCSI issue itself. > > > > > > I could try to run Vlad's other mainline patch itself and measure > > > power, I'll get back on that. Thanks! > > > > > That makes sense. It would be good to have a look at your power figures > > and traces. > > If you don't mind, could you backport that patch to 5.10? > Here is my 5.10 tree for reference (without the patch) > https://github.com/joelagnel/linux-kernel.git (branch > 5.10-v9-minus-queuework-plus-kfreebatch) > > and I am getting conflicts if I cherry-pick: > 51824b780b71 ("rcu/kvfree: Update KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES interval") > > I am assuming you have already done the backport, that's why you got > the traces above. If so, I would appreciate a link to your branch so I > don't mess the backport up! > Sure. I sent you the patches privately so i do not want to paste here a lot of code to make extra line-nose. -- Uladzislau Rezki
