Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:58:25AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just 
> > > > > > have per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake 
> > > > > > them up via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP 
> > > > > > cross call (wakeups do immediate cross-calls already).
> > > > > 
> > > > > My concern with this is that the cache misses accessing all the 
> > > > > processes on this single waitqueue would be serialized, slowing 
> > > > > things down. In contrast, the bitmask that smp_call_function() 
> > > > > traverses delivers on the order of a thousand CPUs' worth of bits 
> > > > > per cache miss.  I will give it a try, though.
> > > > 
> > > > At least if you go via the migration threads, you can queue up 
> > > > requests to them locally. But there's going to be cachemisses 
> > > > _anyway_, since you have to access them all from a single CPU, 
> > > > and then they have to fetch details about what to do, and then 
> > > > have to notify the originator about completion.
> > > 
> > > Ah, so you are suggesting that I use smp_call_function() to run 
> > > code on each CPU that wakes up that CPU's migration thread?  I 
> > > will take a look at this.
> > 
> > My suggestion was to queue up a dummy 'struct migration_req' up with 
> > it (change migration_req::task == NULL to mean 'nothing') and simply 
> > wake it up using wake_up_process().
> 
> OK.  I was thinking of just using wake_up_process() without the
> migration_req structure, and unconditionally setting a per-CPU
> variable from within migration_thread() just before the list_empty()
> check.  In your approach we would need a NULL-pointer check just
> before the call to __migrate_task().
> 
> > That will force a quiescent state, without the need for any extra 
> > information, right?
> 
> Yep!
> 
> > This is what the scheduler code does, roughly:
> > 
> >                 wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread);
> >                 wait_for_completion(&req.done);
> > 
> > and this will always have to perform well. The 'req' could be put 
> > into PER_CPU, and a loop could be done like this:
> > 
> > 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >                 wake_up_process(cpu_rq(cpu)->migration_thread);
> > 
> > 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >                 wait_for_completion(&per_cpu(req, cpu).done);
> > 
> > hm?
> 
> My concern is the linear slowdown for large systems, but this 
> should be OK for modest systems (a few 10s of CPUs).  However, I 
> will try it out -- it does not need to be a long-term solution, 
> after all.

I think there is going to be a linear slowdown no matter what - 
because sending that many IPIs is going to be linear. (there are no 
'broadcast to all' IPIs anymore - on x86 we only have them if all 
physical APIC IDs are 7 or smaller.)

Also, no matter what scheme we use, the target CPU does have to be 
processed somehow and it does have to signal completion back somehow 
- which generates cachemisses.

I think what probaby matters most is to go simple, and to use 
established kernel primitives - and the above is really typical 
pattern for things like TLB flushes to a process having a presence 
on every physical CPU. Those aspects will be kept reasonably fast 
and balanced on all hardware that matters. (and if not, people will 
notice any TLB flush/shootdown linear slowdowns and will address it)

I could be wrong though ... maybe someone can get some numbers from 
a really large system?

	Ingo