From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [lkp-developer] [sched,rcu] cf7a2dca60: [No primary change] +186% will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:48:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161214164827.GL3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161214161540.GP25573@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:15:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 14-12-16 03:06:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:54:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 13-12-16 07:14:08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Just FYI for the moment...
> > > >
> > > > So even with the slowed-down checking, making cond_resched() do what
> > > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() does results in a smallish but quite measurable
> > > > degradation according to 0day.
> > >
> > > So if I understand those results properly, the reason seems to be the
> > > increased involuntary context switches, right? Or am I misreading the
> > > data?
> > > I am looking at your "sched,rcu: Make cond_resched() provide RCU
> > > quiescent state" in linux-next and I am wondering whether rcu_all_qs has
> > > to be called unconditionally and not only when should_resched failed few
> > > times? I guess you have discussed that with Peter already but do not
> > > remember the outcome.
> >
> > My first thought is to wait for the grace period to age further before
> > checking, the idea being to avoid increasing cond_resched() overhead
> > any further. But if that doesn't work, then yes, I may have to look at
> > adding more checks to cond_resched().
>
> This might be really naive but would something like the following work?
> The overhead should be pretty much negligible, I guess. Ideally the pcp
> variable could be set somewhere from check_cpu_stall() but I couldn't
> wrap my head around that code to see how exactly.
My concern (perhaps misplaced) with this approach is that there are
quite a few tight loops containing cond_resched(). So I would still
need to throttle the resulting grace-period acceleration to keep the
context switches down to a dull roar.
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcutiny.h b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> index ac81e4063b40..1c005c5304a3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> @@ -243,6 +243,10 @@ static inline void rcu_all_qs(void)
> barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking across. */
> }
>
> +static inline void cond_resched_rcu_check(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> /* RCUtree hotplug events */
> #define rcutree_prepare_cpu NULL
> #define rcutree_online_cpu NULL
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcutree.h b/include/linux/rcutree.h
> index 63a4e4cf40a5..176f6e386379 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcutree.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcutree.h
> @@ -110,6 +110,18 @@ extern int rcu_scheduler_active __read_mostly;
> bool rcu_is_watching(void);
>
> void rcu_all_qs(void);
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_needs_qs);
> +
> +static inline void cond_resched_rcu_check(void)
> +{
> + /* Make sure we do not miss rcu_all_qs at least every now and then */
> + if (this_cpu_inc_return(rcu_needs_qs) > 10) {
> + this_cpu_write(rcu_needs_qs, 0);
> + rcu_all_qs();
> + }
> +}
> +#endif
>
> /* RCUtree hotplug events */
> int rcutree_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 69a5611a7e7c..783c74ae9930 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -268,6 +268,9 @@ void rcu_bh_qs(void)
> }
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_sched_qs_mask);
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_needs_qs);
> +#endif
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_dynticks, rcu_dynticks) = {
> .dynticks_nesting = DYNTICK_TASK_EXIT_IDLE,
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 154fd689fe02..a58844be2ef1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4905,6 +4905,8 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> if (should_resched(0)) {
> preempt_schedule_common();
> return 1;
> + } else {
> + cond_resched_rcu_check();
> }
> return 0;
> }
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-14 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-13 15:14 Fw: [lkp-developer] [sched,rcu] cf7a2dca60: [No primary change] +186% will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-14 9:54 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-14 11:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-14 16:15 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-14 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2016-12-14 17:39 ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-04 0:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20161214164827.GL3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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).