All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@linux.ibm.com>,
	samir@linux.ibm.com, Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>,
	RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Latch normal synchronize_rcu() path on flood
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:39:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aWleoTMxmWlzbT-e@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f83b53da-7812-4285-a1db-2fa0fb8d611a@linux.ibm.com>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 10:53:47PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> +samir
> 
> On 1/15/26 12:04 AM, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > Currently, rcu_normal_wake_from_gp is only enabled by default
> > on small systems(<= 16 CPUs) or when a user explicitly set it
> > enabled.
> > 
> > This patch introduces an adaptive latching mechanism:
> >   * Tracks the number of in-flight synchronize_rcu() requests
> >     using a new atomic_t counter(rcu_sr_normal_count);
> > 
> 
> is this atomic variable getting updated by multiple CPUs at the
> same time? We had seen in past such updates tend to be very costly.
> 
The threshold we maintain is 64 users in a queue. So first 64
parallel users create contention but it is mitigated right away
by switching to another path. Latching normal path due to flood.

> >   * If the count exceeds RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR(64), it sets
> >     the rcu_sr_normal_latched, reverting new requests onto the
> >     scaled wait_rcu_gp() path;
> > 
> >   * The latch is cleared only when the pending requests are fully
> >     drained(nr == 0);
> > 
> >   * Enables rcu_normal_wake_from_gp by default for all systems,
> >     relying on this dynamic throttling instead of static CPU
> >     limits.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   kernel/rcu/tree.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 293bbd9ac3f4..c42d480d6e0b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1631,17 +1631,21 @@ static void rcu_sr_put_wait_head(struct llist_node *node)
> >   	atomic_set_release(&sr_wn->inuse, 0);
> >   }
> > -/* Enable rcu_normal_wake_from_gp automatically on small systems. */
> > -#define WAKE_FROM_GP_CPU_THRESHOLD 16
> > -
> > -static int rcu_normal_wake_from_gp = -1;
> > +static int rcu_normal_wake_from_gp = 1;
> >   module_param(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp, int, 0644);
> >   static struct workqueue_struct *sync_wq;
> > +#define RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR 64
> > +
> > +/* Number of in-flight synchronize_rcu() calls queued on srs_next. */
> > +static atomic_long_t rcu_sr_normal_count;
> > +static atomic_t rcu_sr_normal_latched;
> > +
> >   static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
> >   {
> >   	struct rcu_synchronize *rs = container_of(
> >   		(struct rcu_head *) node, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
> > +	long nr;
> >   	WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) &&
> >   		!poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs->oldstate),
> > @@ -1649,6 +1653,15 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
> >   	/* Finally. */
> >   	complete(&rs->completion);
> > +	nr = atomic_long_dec_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(nr < 0);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Unlatch: switch back to normal path when fully
> > +	 * drained and if it has been latched.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (nr == 0)
> > +		(void)atomic_cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 1, 0);
> >   }
> >   static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > @@ -1794,7 +1807,14 @@ static bool rcu_sr_normal_gp_init(void)
> >   static void rcu_sr_normal_add_req(struct rcu_synchronize *rs)
> >   {
> > +	long nr;
> > +
> >   	llist_add((struct llist_node *) &rs->head, &rcu_state.srs_next);
> > +	nr = atomic_long_inc_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
> > +
> > +	/* Latch: only when flooded and if unlatched. */
> > +	if (nr >= RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR)
> > +		(void)atomic_cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 0, 1);
> >   }
> >   /*
> > @@ -3268,7 +3288,8 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_normal(void)
> >   	trace_rcu_sr_normal(rcu_state.name, &rs.head, TPS("request"));
> > -	if (READ_ONCE(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp) < 1) {
> > +	if (READ_ONCE(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp) < 1 ||
> > +			atomic_read(&rcu_sr_normal_latched)) {
> >   		wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_hurry);
> >   		goto trace_complete_out;
> >   	}
> > @@ -4892,12 +4913,6 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
> >   	sync_wq = alloc_workqueue("sync_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
> >   	WARN_ON(!sync_wq);
> > -	/* Respect if explicitly disabled via a boot parameter. */
> > -	if (rcu_normal_wake_from_gp < 0) {
> > -		if (num_possible_cpus() <= WAKE_FROM_GP_CPU_THRESHOLD)
> > -			rcu_normal_wake_from_gp = 1;
> > -	}
> > -
> >   	/* Fill in default value for rcutree.qovld boot parameter. */
> >   	/* -After- the rcu_node ->lock fields are initialized! */
> >   	if (qovld < 0)
> 
> 
> Samir,
> Could you please give this patch a try on 1000+ cpu system?
> 
> Specifically test time taken for SMT1 to SMT8 and SMT8 to SMT1 switching
> time.
> 
> 
> Uladzislau, Is there any specific testing(other than above) you are looking for?
> 
Yep, your test cases which are important for you. You also run it on
~400 CPUs system according to previous conversation in first topic.

--
Uladzislau Rezki

  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-15 21:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-14 18:34 [PATCH] rcu: Latch normal synchronize_rcu() path on flood Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2026-01-15 17:23 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-15 21:39   ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2026-01-17  6:17 ` Samir M
2026-01-17  8:48   ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-17 12:18     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-18 11:24       ` Samir M
2026-01-25 14:22       ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-29 19:33         ` Samir M
2026-02-02 11:25           ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-19 11:24   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-17 15:16 ` Markus Elfring

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aWleoTMxmWlzbT-e@pc636 \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=samir@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=vishalc@linux.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.