On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 12:11:28PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 12:02 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:48:46PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:29:59AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 19, 2024, at 5:53 AM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 05:05:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> On Mar 18, 2024, at 2:58 PM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hello, Joel!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sorry for late checking, see below few comments:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> In the synchronize_rcu() common case, we will have less than
> > > > >>>> SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP number of users per GP. Waking up the kworker
> > > > >>>> is pointless just to free the last injected wait head since at that point,
> > > > >>>> all the users have already been awakened.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Introduce a new counter to track this and prevent the wakeup in the
> > > > >>>> common case.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >>>> ---
> > > > >>>> Rebased on paul/dev of today.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > >>>> kernel/rcu/tree.h | 1 +
> > > > >>>> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > >>>> index 9fbb5ab57c84..bd29fe3c76bf 100644
> > > > >>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > >>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > >>>> @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static struct rcu_state rcu_state = {
> > > > >>>> .ofl_lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
> > > > >>>> .srs_cleanup_work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work,
> > > > >>>> rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work),
> > > > >>>> + .srs_cleanups_pending = ATOMIC_INIT(0),
> > > > >>>> };
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> /* Dump rcu_node combining tree at boot to verify correct setup. */
> > > > >>>> @@ -1642,8 +1643,11 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > >>>> * the done tail list manipulations are protected here.
> > > > >>>> */
> > > > >>>> done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> > > > >>>> - if (!done)
> > > > >>>> + if (!done) {
> > > > >>>> + /* See comments below. */
> > > > >>>> + atomic_dec_return_release(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
> > > > >>>> return;
> > > > >>>> + }
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_sr_is_wait_head(done));
> > > > >>>> head = done->next;
> > > > >>>> @@ -1666,6 +1670,9 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> rcu_sr_put_wait_head(rcu);
> > > > >>>> }
> > > > >>>> +
> > > > >>>> + /* Order list manipulations with atomic access. */
> > > > >>>> + atomic_dec_return_release(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
> > > > >>>> }
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> /*
> > > > >>>> @@ -1673,7 +1680,7 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > >>>> */
> > > > >>>> static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> > > > >>>> {
> > > > >>>> - struct llist_node *wait_tail, *next, *rcu;
> > > > >>>> + struct llist_node *wait_tail, *next = NULL, *rcu = NULL;
> > > > >>>> int done = 0;
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> wait_tail = rcu_state.srs_wait_tail;
> > > > >>>> @@ -1699,16 +1706,35 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> > > > >>>> break;
> > > > >>>> }
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - // concurrent sr_normal_gp_cleanup work might observe this update.
> > > > >>>> - smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
> > > > >>>> + /*
> > > > >>>> + * Fast path, no more users to process. Remove the last wait head
> > > > >>>> + * if no inflight-workers. If there are in-flight workers, let them
> > > > >>>> + * remove the last wait head.
> > > > >>>> + */
> > > > >>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu);
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> This assumption is not correct. An "rcu" can be NULL in fact.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hmm I could never trigger that. Are you saying that is true after Neeraj recent patch or something else?
> > > > >> Note, after Neeraj patch to handle the lack of heads availability, it could be true so I requested
> > > > >> him to rebase his patch on top of this one.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However I will revisit my patch and look for if it could occur but please let me know if you knew of a sequence of events to make it NULL.
> > > > >>>
> > > > > I think we should agree on your patch first otherwise it becomes a bit
> > > > > messy or go with a Neeraj as first step and then work on youth. So, i
> > > > > reviewed this patch based on latest Paul's dev branch. I see that Neeraj
> > > > > needs further work.
> > > >
> > > > You are right. So the only change is to drop the warning and those braces. Agreed?
> > > >
> > > Let me check a bit. Looks like correct but just in case.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks. I was also considering improving it for the rcu == NULL case, as
> > below. I will test it more before re-sending.
> >
> > On top of my patch:
> >
> > ---8<-----------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 0df659a878ee..a5ef844835d4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1706,15 +1706,18 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > +
> > + /* Last head stays. No more processing to do. */
> > + if (!rcu)
> > + return;
> > +
>
> Ugh, should be "if (!wait_head->next)" instead of "if (!rcu)". But
> in any case, the original patch except the warning should hold.
> Still, I am testing the above diff now.
>
> - Joel
>
Just in case, it is based on your patch:
<snip>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index bd29fe3c76bf..98546afe7c21 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1711,29 +1711,25 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
* if no inflight-workers. If there are in-flight workers, let them
* remove the last wait head.
*/
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu);
- ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
-
- if (rcu && rcu_sr_is_wait_head(rcu) && rcu->next == NULL &&
- /* Order atomic access with list manipulation. */
- !atomic_read_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending)) {
+ if (wait_tail->next && rcu_sr_is_wait_head(wait_tail->next) && !wait_tail->next->next &&
+ !atomic_read_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending)) {
+ rcu_sr_put_wait_head(wait_tail->next);
wait_tail->next = NULL;
- rcu_sr_put_wait_head(rcu);
- smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
- return;
}
/* Concurrent sr_normal_gp_cleanup work might observe this update. */
smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
+ ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
- /*
- * We schedule a work in order to perform a final processing
- * of outstanding users(if still left) and releasing wait-heads
- * added by rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() call.
- */
- atomic_inc(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
- if (!queue_work(sync_wq, &rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work)) {
- atomic_dec(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
+ if (wait_tail->next) {
+ /*
+ * We schedule a work in order to perform a final processing
+ * of outstanding users(if still left) and releasing wait-heads
+ * added by rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() call.
+ */
+ atomic_inc(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
+ if (!queue_work(sync_wq, &rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work))
+ atomic_dec(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
}
}
<snip>
--
Uladzislau Rezki
