From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@redhat.com>, P J P <ppandit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/buffer.c: disable per-CPU buffer_head cache for isolated CPUs
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:54:37 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZM2PvQJd7kRyWnAZ@tpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZM11z1Jxqrwk47e9@lothringen>
On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 12:03:59AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 05:08:15PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > For certain types of applications (for example PLC software or
> > RAN processing), upon occurrence of an event, it is necessary to
> > complete a certain task in a maximum amount of time (deadline).
> >
> > One way to express this requirement is with a pair of numbers,
> > deadline time and execution time, where:
> >
> > * deadline time: length of time between event and deadline.
> > * execution time: length of time it takes for processing of event
> > to occur on a particular hardware platform
> > (uninterrupted).
> >
> > The particular values depend on use-case. For the case
> > where the realtime application executes in a virtualized
> > guest, an IPI which must be serviced in the host will cause
> > the following sequence of events:
> >
> > 1) VM-exit
> > 2) execution of IPI (and function call)
> > 3) VM-entry
> >
> > Which causes an excess of 50us latency as observed by cyclictest
> > (this violates the latency requirement of vRAN application with 1ms TTI,
> > for example).
> >
> > invalidate_bh_lrus calls an IPI on each CPU that has non empty
> > per-CPU cache:
> >
> > on_each_cpu_cond(has_bh_in_lru, invalidate_bh_lru, NULL, 1);
> >
> > The performance when using the per-CPU LRU cache is as follows:
> >
> > 42 ns per __find_get_block
> > 68 ns per __find_get_block_slow
> >
> > Given that the main use cases for latency sensitive applications
> > do not involve block I/O (data necessary for program operation is
> > locked in RAM), disable per-CPU buffer_head caches for isolated CPUs.
Hi Frederic,
> So what happens if they ever do I/O then? Like if they need to do
> some prep work before entering an isolated critical section?
Then instead of going through the per-CPU LRU buffer_head cache
(__find_get_block), isolated CPUs will work as if their per-CPU
cache is always empty, going through the slowpath
(__find_get_block_slow). The algorithm is:
/*
* Perform a pagecache lookup for the matching buffer. If it's there, refresh
* it in the LRU and mark it as accessed. If it is not present then return
* NULL
*/
struct buffer_head *
__find_get_block(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size)
{
struct buffer_head *bh = lookup_bh_lru(bdev, block, size);
if (bh == NULL) {
/* __find_get_block_slow will mark the page accessed */
bh = __find_get_block_slow(bdev, block);
if (bh)
bh_lru_install(bh);
} else
touch_buffer(bh);
return bh;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__find_get_block);
I think the performance difference between the per-CPU LRU cache
VS __find_get_block_slow was much more significant when the cache
was introduced. Nowadays its only 26ns (moreover modern filesystems
do not use buffer_head's).
> Thanks.
Thank you for the review.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> > index a7fc561758b1..49e9160ce100 100644
> > --- a/fs/buffer.c
> > +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
> > #include <trace/events/block.h>
> > #include <linux/fscrypt.h>
> > #include <linux/fsverity.h>
> > +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
> >
> > #include "internal.h"
> >
> > @@ -1289,7 +1290,7 @@ static void bh_lru_install(struct buffer_head *bh)
> > * failing page migration.
> > * Skip putting upcoming bh into bh_lru until migration is done.
> > */
> > - if (lru_cache_disabled()) {
> > + if (lru_cache_disabled() || cpu_is_isolated(smp_processor_id())) {
> > bh_lru_unlock();
> > return;
> > }
> > @@ -1319,6 +1320,10 @@ lookup_bh_lru(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size)
> >
> > check_irqs_on();
> > bh_lru_lock();
> > + if (cpu_is_isolated(smp_processor_id())) {
> > + bh_lru_unlock();
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > for (i = 0; i < BH_LRU_SIZE; i++) {
> > struct buffer_head *bh = __this_cpu_read(bh_lrus.bhs[i]);
> >
> >
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-04 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-27 20:08 [PATCH] fs/buffer.c: disable per-CPU buffer_head cache for isolated CPUs Marcelo Tosatti
2023-07-26 14:31 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2023-07-27 9:18 ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-28 19:35 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2023-08-04 22:03 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-08-04 23:54 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2023-08-10 10:36 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-08-10 11:59 ` Christian Brauner
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=ZM2PvQJd7kRyWnAZ@tpad \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ppandit@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ypodemsk@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).