On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 03:14:32PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 08:26:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:29:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > > On Mar 27, 2023, at 9:06 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:21:23AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > > >>>> From: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:28 PM
> > > >>>> [...]
> > > >>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A call to a synchronize_rcu() can be expensive from time point of view.
> > > >>>> Different workloads can be affected by this especially the ones which use this
> > > >>>> API in its time critical sections.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is interesting and meaningful research. ;-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> For example in case of NOCB scenario the wakeme_after_rcu() callback
> > > >>>> invocation depends on where in a nocb-list it is located. Below is an example
> > > >>>> when it was the last out of ~3600 callbacks:
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Can it be implemented separately as follows? it seems that the code is simpler
> > > >> (only personal opinion) 😊.
> > > >>
> > > >> But I didn't test whether this reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time
> > > >>
> > > >> +static void rcu_poll_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + unsigned long gp_snap;
> > > >> +
> > > >> + gp_snap = start_poll_synchronize_rcu();
> > > >> + while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(gp_snap))
> > > >> + schedule_timeout_idle(1);
> > > >
> > > > I could be wrong, but my guess is that the guys working with
> > > > battery-powered devices are not going to be very happy with this loop.
> > > >
> > > > All those wakeups by all tasks waiting for a grace period end up
> > > > consuming a surprisingly large amount of energy.
> > >
> > > Is that really the common case? On the general topic of wake-ups:
> > > Most of the time there should be only one
> > > task waiting synchronously on a GP to end. If that is
> > > true, then it feels like waking
> > > up nocb Kthreads which indirectly wake other threads is doing more work than usual?
> >
> > A good question, and the number of outstanding synchronize_rcu()
> > calls will of course be limited by the number of tasks in the system.
> > But I myself have raised the ire of battery-powered embedded folks with
> > a rather small number of wakeups, so...
> >
> > And on larger systems there can be a tradeoff between contention on
> > the one hand and number of wakeups on the other.
> >
> > The original nocb implementation in fact had the grace-period kthead
> > waking up all of what are now called rcuoc kthreads. The indirect scheme
> > reduced the total number of wakeups by up to 50% and also reduced the
> > CPU consumption of the grace-period kthread, which otherwise would have
> > become a bottleneck on large systems.
> >
> > And also, a scheme that directly wakes tasks waiting in synchronize_rcu()
> > might well use the same ->nocb_gp_wq[] waitqueues that are used by the
> > rcuog kthreads, if that is what you were getting at.
>
> And on small systems, you might of course have the rcuog kthread directly
> invoke callbacks if there are not very many of them. This would of
> course need to be done quite carefully to avoid any number of races
> with the rcuoc kthreads. You could do the same thing on a large system,
> but on a per-rcuog basis.
>
> I vaguely recall discussing this in one of our sessions, but who knows?
>
> Would this really be of benefit? Or did you have something else in mind?
Yes, this is what I was also referring to.
Not sure about benefit, depends on workloads and measurement.
thanks,
- Joel
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > > I am curious to measure how much does Vlad patch reduce wakeups in the common case.
> >
> > Sounds like a good thing to measure!
> >
> > > I was also wondering how Vlad patch effects RCU-barrier ordering. I guess
> > > we want the wake up to happen in the order of
> > > other callbacks also waiting.
> >
> > OK, I will bite. Why would rcu_barrier() need to care about the
> > synchronize_rcu() invocations if they no longer used call_rcu()?
> >
> > > One last note, most battery powered systems are perhaps already using expedited RCU ;-)
> >
> > Good point. And that does raise the question of exactly what workloads
> > and systems want faster wakeups from synchronize_rcu() and cannot get
> > this effect from expedited grace periods.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > - Joel
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +
> > > >> +void call_rcu_poll(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
> > > >> +DEFINE_RCU_TASKS(rcu_poll, rcu_poll_wait_gp, call_rcu_poll,
> > > >> + "RCU Poll");
> > > >> +void call_rcu_poll(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + call_rcu_tasks_generic(rhp, func, &rcu_poll);
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_poll);
> > > >> +
> > > >> +void synchronize_rcu_poll(void)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + synchronize_rcu_tasks_generic(&rcu_poll);
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_poll);
> > > >> +
> > > >> +static int __init rcu_spawn_poll_kthread(void)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + cblist_init_generic(&rcu_poll);
> > > >> + rcu_poll.gp_sleep = HZ / 10;
> > > >> + rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread_generic(&rcu_poll);
> > > >> + return 0;
> > > >> +}
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >> Zqiang
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> <snip>
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] d..1. 21950.145313: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt
> > > >>>> CBs=3613 bl=28
> > > >>>> ...
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] ..... 21950.152578: rcu_invoke_callback: rcu_preempt
> > > >>>> rhp=00000000b2d6dee8 func=__free_vm_area_struct.cfi_jt
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] ..... 21950.152579: rcu_invoke_callback: rcu_preempt
> > > >>>> rhp=00000000a446f607 func=__free_vm_area_struct.cfi_jt
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] ..... 21950.152580: rcu_invoke_callback: rcu_preempt
> > > >>>> rhp=00000000a5cab03b func=__free_vm_area_struct.cfi_jt
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] ..... 21950.152581: rcu_invoke_callback: rcu_preempt
> > > >>>> rhp=0000000013b7e5ee func=__free_vm_area_struct.cfi_jt
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] ..... 21950.152582: rcu_invoke_callback: rcu_preempt
> > > >>>> rhp=000000000a8ca6f9 func=__free_vm_area_struct.cfi_jt
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] ..... 21950.152583: rcu_invoke_callback: rcu_preempt
> > > >>>> rhp=000000008f162ca8 func=wakeme_after_rcu.cfi_jt
> > > >>>> <...>-29 [001] d..1. 21950.152625: rcu_batch_end: rcu_preempt CBs-
> > > >>>> invoked=3612 idle=....
> > > >>>> <snip>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Did the results above tell us that CBs-invoked=3612 during the time 21950.145313 ~ 21950.152625?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If possible, may I know the steps, commands, and related parameters to produce the results above?
> > > >>> Thank you!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Build the kernel with CONFIG_RCU_TRACE configuration. Update your "set_event"
> > > >>> file with appropriate traces:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> <snip>
> > > >>> XQ-DQ54:/sys/kernel/tracing # echo rcu:rcu_batch_start rcu:rcu_batch_end rcu:rcu_invoke_callback > set_event
> > > >>>
> > > >>> XQ-DQ54:/sys/kernel/tracing # cat set_event
> > > >>> rcu:rcu_batch_start
> > > >>> rcu:rcu_invoke_callback
> > > >>> rcu:rcu_batch_end
> > > >>> XQ-DQ54:/sys/kernel/tracing #
> > > >>> <snip>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Collect traces as much as you want: XQ-DQ54:/sys/kernel/tracing # echo 1 > tracing_on; sleep 10; echo 0 > tracing_on
> > > >>> Next problem is how to parse it. Of course you will not be able to parse
> > > >>> megabytes of traces. For that purpose i use a special C trace parser.
> > > >>> If you need an example please let me know i can show here.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Uladzislau Rezki
