From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f180.google.com (mail-lj1-f180.google.com [209.85.208.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 167F279926 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 14:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707403872; cv=none; b=B4cZ5WrQARr9cyRVeQAKU5+jD5jFpjk09gx/n7S7Rz+GpZnsjYDZjSdjGQyRv9cwHgWtJrAzAZZGiRgt3WJJ9GF/NydFK8NYRSR8oeBxa+OuRK1bjdHjMGIEz/bdujjWAOdlKPPIp78RHY87M5t5o3UvhABRa9ihrYeE//oIQxo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707403872; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Zu1zCD6k7M8shzYC7OO3X+lEBEVmH9A4kMKypbHXJTo=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qEtV2YqDYX+7dQn99J/yIdLCqOSXEaFi7GAsNTfFeJNK7mtvRqLx8Y3QQ5xDGPVTjgnxs5xyb0XMPjgjxG7mIUbNi4R/lmX7uzK+QVC1bVquxzbgQvNqoxY67w8PsDDRZdxC7gadp5GqFcQrkbXixyGtev/7gO1NfoXwdbRnGfw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=OpS9LbWp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OpS9LbWp" Received: by mail-lj1-f180.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d0a0e40672so10180951fa.0 for ; Thu, 08 Feb 2024 06:51:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707403869; x=1708008669; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DV06rcunBPBALIVlHenPv51cZhhW7Zimmh9/welqPzE=; b=OpS9LbWpTCyzo96igMhe7zBxreXCTSGKD3j5q1TrFE0WInIJx27IWc8srokJljIUvD sBKKmCcsCpcDrtVt2qPZlIikeQxTYa4WnkGikjuIj9JUuviK4u04ubjLPTXzdQApP94+ IRagQnD2Bg87UAK0HZ5MOX3YVH3uqBisaNbb0J+DxJWAduskAbhclOISniJ+T+GtZVC1 NKg8Zj39ck5vpjyMUe3c7/adZNmD2BtFDCu4Gm40MH7pgA0J8I8hhf1Wld+ymuCp81JJ dcYlEwW0kboiJI8aF2vKXt8T0sbQACYDuVrGAUxY4rnHmw3OGhdSgwmQEXaLZYP7xAQY jW0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707403869; x=1708008669; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=DV06rcunBPBALIVlHenPv51cZhhW7Zimmh9/welqPzE=; b=hxAwimBzj57HqK/7TZ53hjJdqthjqRV2KCQ3nBW4lTli+wT5WfcDp9HdyDIlPp55qZ 1ZMKmM/e+3djkvIGzUADkiPkSIVp3ILWFSeh9UabbMuuU9z0vBQLjDpD0xwUXfMjZ41f RZPQ1JZpLrNRev5f3eHxvllj6U94IAVckDbIyBP3ZmJP1YA98COr3Y+c8OyS7Wcjwljh Dgm48gTrHoM124U0dU8ZRalwW6ohKOgz092jWULjCUj0j/jKflfBgGs4XAqo7bgSn5V8 T27S4VCHYgJNLHVrFayo0nnBlD63+F9krtmCGquzfUjdEgdvTEGsytmuIb2eACcCv9HM tkBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzPwVqO1ike0Kg+wbLFtktDqvygSYcGTiexdsMy7YQPCxOR1sxs Mfobps00/HEnSW+B59fgw5KOGSiQQ231R2oMQwBXtYNLpCOazJzLct2RB+Ps X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFL5hyaGGSXpOsAufIM2w8QLygmpL9W/RgkWuS9eQBlMHPZLqHAgDuialbPiAzKByweDywvsQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9cc2:0:b0:2cf:1de7:1fd with SMTP id g2-20020a2e9cc2000000b002cf1de701fdmr1106420ljj.20.1707403868976; Thu, 08 Feb 2024 06:51:08 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUmEJfKy9xm0TWS2dSV2jEqaI7lpRdkQtRmaLndcxQSt0j8d+jfESxSXX/upJWxwJiEwGomDpDhkIXCqwvxtWaHawxWe7LX26WyDIbz1kIBhP1ByGB70D2za2yIcSifXdT9hDo20tCFiu8AJceoKx9lvRems1WOHa6fV8nSQfhwLcXmXZFHjelAaNWm0qzHfv2qvEfBzWI= Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-221-0.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.221.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e26-20020a2e8eda000000b002cf1cf44a00sm15177ljl.52.2024.02.08.06.51.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Feb 2024 06:51:08 -0800 (PST) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:51:06 +0100 To: Andrea Righi Cc: Andrea Righi , Joel Fernandes , "Paul E. McKenney" , Joel Fernandes , rcu@vger.kernel.org, "Cc: Frederic Weisbecker" Subject: Re: Observation on NOHZ_FULL Message-ID: References: <9f9b6885-6d9d-4f30-9635-49443e1615e9@joelfernandes.org> <1fcf7e8a-c245-4c5c-ac86-7f0a1531032d@joelfernandes.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 01:53:58PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 07:55:37AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 12:54:58AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > ... > > > >> Slightly related, but one of the things we are wondering also is how > > > >> much of the overhead for your nohz-full and lazy-RCU test (on top of > > > >> baseline - that is just CONFIG_HZ=1000 without nohz-full or nocbs) is > > > >> because of just using NOCB. Uladsizlau mentioned he might run a test > > > >> for comparing along those lines as well. > > > > > > > > Just to clarify, "lazy rcu on" results are just with rcu_nocb=all and > > > > lazy RCUs enabled (and HZ=1000), so without nohz_full. > > > > > > > > If I enable only nohz_full=all (without rcu_nocb) I see something like > > > > this: > > > > > > Ok. I did want to mention nohz_full implies rcu_nocb on the same CPUs as well. > > > > > > Its also mentioned in the boot param docs on the last line of the description: > > > > > > nohz_full= [KNL,BOOT,SMP,ISOL] > > > The argument is a cpu list, as described above. > > > In kernels built with CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y, set > > > the specified list of CPUs whose tick will be stopped > > > whenever possible. The boot CPU will be forced outside > > > the range to maintain the timekeeping. Any CPUs > > > in this list will have their RCU callbacks offloaded, > > > just as if they had also been called out in the > > > rcu_nocbs= boot parameter. > > > > Ah I didn't realize that, it definitely makes sense, thanks for > > clarifying it. > > > > Then basically in the results that I posted the difference is > > "nohz_full=all+rcu_nocb=all" vs "rcu_nocb=all+lazy_RCU=on". > > > So, you say that a hrtimer_interrupt() handler takes more time in case > of lazy + nocb + rcu_nocb=all and for nohz_full + rcu_nocb=all it faster? > Could you please clarify this? I will try to measure from my side! > > I have done some basic research about hrtimer_interrupt() latency on my > HW with latest Linux kernel. I have compared below cases: > > case a: 1000HZ + lazy + nocb_all_cpus > case b: 1000HZ + nocb_all_cpus > > I used "ftrace" to measure time(in microseconds). Steps: > > echo 0 > tracing_on > echo function_graph > current_tracer > echo funcgraph-proc > trace_options > echo funcgraph-abstime > trace_options > echo hrtimer_interrupt > set_ftrace_filter > > fio --rw=write --bs=1M --size=1G --numjobs=8 --name=worker --time_based --runtime=50& > > echo 1 > tracing_on; sleep 10; echo 0 > tracing_on > > data is based on 10 seconds collection: > > > 6 2102 ############################################################ > 8 2079 ############################################################ > 10 1464 ########################################## > 7 897 ########################## > 9 625 ################## > 12 490 ############## > 13 479 ############## > 11 289 ######### > 5 249 ######## > 14 124 #### > 15 72 ### > 16 41 ## > 17 24 # > 4 22 # > 18 12 # > 22 2 # > 19 1 # > > > > 9 1658 ############################################################ > 13 1308 ################################################ > 12 1224 ############################################# > 10 972 #################################### > 8 703 ########################## > 14 595 ###################### > 15 571 ##################### > 11 525 ################### > 17 350 ############# > 16 235 ######### > 7 214 ######## > 4 73 ### > 5 68 ### > 6 54 ## > 20 9 # > 18 9 # > 19 6 # > 33 1 # > 3 1 # > 28 1 # > 27 1 # > 25 1 # > 22 1 # > 21 1 # > > > I do not see the difference, there is a nose of 1/2/3 microseconds diff. > Let me further have a look at what we use for lazy in terms on hrtimer though. -- Uladzislau Rezki