Le Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:23:52PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > If a CPU is running either a userspace application or a guest OS in > nohz_full mode, it is possible for a system call to occur just as an > RCU grace period is starting. If that CPU also has the scheduling-clock > tick enabled for any reason (such as a second runnable task), and if the > system was booted with rcutree.use_softirq=0, then RCU can add insult to > injury by awakening that CPU's rcuc kthread, resulting in yet another > task and yet more OS jitter due to switching to that task, running it, > and switching back. > > In addition, in the common case where that system call is not of > excessively long duration, awakening the rcuc task is pointless. > This pointlessness is due to the fact that the CPU will enter an extended > quiescent state upon returning to the userspace application or guest OS. > In this case, the rcuc kthread cannot do anything that the main RCU > grace-period kthread cannot do on its behalf, at least if it is given > a few additional milliseconds (for example, given the time duration > specified by rcutree.jiffies_till_first_fqs, give or take scheduling > delays). > > This commit therefore adds a rcutree.nocb_patience_delay kernel boot > parameter that specifies the grace period age (in milliseconds) > before which RCU will refrain from awakening the rcuc kthread. > Preliminary experiementation suggests a value of 1000, that is, > one second. Increasing rcutree.nocb_patience_delay will increase > grace-period latency and in turn increase memory footprint, so systems > with constrained memory might choose a smaller value. Systems with > less-aggressive OS-jitter requirements might choose the default value > of zero, which keeps the traditional immediate-wakeup behavior, thus > avoiding increases in grace-period latency. > > [ paulmck: Apply Leonardo Bras feedback. ] > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240328171949.743211-1-leobras@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Reported-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@xxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@xxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 8 ++++++++ > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 10 ++++++++-- > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 10 ++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > index 500cfa7762257..2d4a512cf1fc6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > @@ -5018,6 +5018,14 @@ > the ->nocb_bypass queue. The definition of "too > many" is supplied by this kernel boot parameter. > > + rcutree.nocb_patience_delay= [KNL] > + On callback-offloaded (rcu_nocbs) CPUs, avoid > + disturbing RCU unless the grace period has > + reached the specified age in milliseconds. > + Defaults to zero. Large values will be capped > + at five seconds. All values will be rounded down > + to the nearest value representable by jiffies. > + > rcutree.qhimark= [KNL] > Set threshold of queued RCU callbacks beyond which > batch limiting is disabled. > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index 35bf4a3736765..408b020c9501f 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -176,6 +176,9 @@ static int gp_init_delay; > module_param(gp_init_delay, int, 0444); > static int gp_cleanup_delay; > module_param(gp_cleanup_delay, int, 0444); > +static int nocb_patience_delay; > +module_param(nocb_patience_delay, int, 0444); > +static int nocb_patience_delay_jiffies; > > // Add delay to rcu_read_unlock() for strict grace periods. > static int rcu_unlock_delay; > @@ -4344,11 +4347,14 @@ static int rcu_pending(int user) > return 1; > > /* Is this a nohz_full CPU in userspace or idle? (Ignore RCU if so.) */ > - if ((user || rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle()) && rcu_nohz_full_cpu()) > + gp_in_progress = rcu_gp_in_progress(); > + if ((user || rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() || > + (gp_in_progress && > + time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_start) + nocb_patience_delay_jiffies))) && > + rcu_nohz_full_cpu()) The rcu_nohz_full_cpu() test should go before anything in order to benefit from the static key in tick_nohz_full_cpu(). And since it only applies to nohz_full, should it be called nohz_full_patience_delay ? Or do we want to generalize it to all nocb uses (which means only rely on rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() if not nohz_full). Not sure if that would make sense... Thanks. > return 0; > > /* Is the RCU core waiting for a quiescent state from this CPU? */ > - gp_in_progress = rcu_gp_in_progress(); > if (rdp->core_needs_qs && !rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm && gp_in_progress) > return 1; > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > index 340bbefe5f652..31c539f09c150 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > @@ -93,6 +93,16 @@ static void __init rcu_bootup_announce_oddness(void) > pr_info("\tRCU debug GP init slowdown %d jiffies.\n", gp_init_delay); > if (gp_cleanup_delay) > pr_info("\tRCU debug GP cleanup slowdown %d jiffies.\n", gp_cleanup_delay); > + if (nocb_patience_delay < 0) { > + pr_info("\tRCU NOCB CPU patience negative (%d), resetting to zero.\n", nocb_patience_delay); > + nocb_patience_delay = 0; > + } else if (nocb_patience_delay > 5 * MSEC_PER_SEC) { > + pr_info("\tRCU NOCB CPU patience too large (%d), resetting to %ld.\n", nocb_patience_delay, 5 * MSEC_PER_SEC); > + nocb_patience_delay = 5 * MSEC_PER_SEC; > + } else if (nocb_patience_delay) { > + pr_info("\tRCU NOCB CPU patience set to %d milliseconds.\n", nocb_patience_delay); > + } > + nocb_patience_delay_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(nocb_patience_delay); > if (!use_softirq) > pr_info("\tRCU_SOFTIRQ processing moved to rcuc kthreads.\n"); > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG)) > -- > 2.40.1 > >
