From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E4EC2BBCA for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 435D76B0099; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3E6516B009A; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:01:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 25F366B009B; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:01:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057326B0099 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64065A0445 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:01:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82270177752.09.F824768 Received: from mail-qk1-f178.google.com (mail-qk1-f178.google.com [209.85.222.178]) by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23ED840022 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf12.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=KztRt19S; spf=pass (imf12.hostedemail.com: domain of boqun.feng@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=boqun.feng@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1719338466; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=/OKVfsRel0UqymJCjiuMDxyq3qMswL2LAXIuvmvAZXY=; b=DBOiOjPLUQ3CZpH4b5hdEZiVMWvdZrIuLrt6PDDjdgJBGOdvSm8TglFoJ+VGr6ByhPY+gW jZH1sTZtSpTyhzYjX8Ml1qPTwzDyDi3lUbKND6MLPxLZXxzSC88JD+s3FYjecGXQNMAbjx r91Mb8a6vYYaGDfwnxTUFbHaj4caI1o= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf12.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=KztRt19S; spf=pass (imf12.hostedemail.com: domain of boqun.feng@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=boqun.feng@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1719338466; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=J+ETzKdur0MuuIBEhuHApUlIbP1Cpk27yQ7mZmra0FDh3pWwo3uZfDdBrEiLB3Jy3ikexN bTXCRnnObNdEn954qnEQM3vmViXsIAtsKtXp0p0Y6oR7Ks4qpJlUIaWRTZL5xlXrjc73U3 uF9y9YuBdT9In+PSvWx5UGpeQ4IGRNk= Received: by mail-qk1-f178.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-795569eedcaso307165485a.3 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719338472; x=1719943272; darn=kvack.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:feedback-id:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=/OKVfsRel0UqymJCjiuMDxyq3qMswL2LAXIuvmvAZXY=; b=KztRt19SFAK8jGsSNd8l1eHeCsPiZq5YAwbx/Nt3H3js7CjCRVwQ7nat2n8uHJDyDj sc85TlzKesua2yaY8+/mNlp8uc3WxnJYB5hkAxJp54yiDyTu+sfNi4jvxjr9O1JIc5d+ uzs2NkhITzWU90a72kEZYmHVsFgbMtym2Rd5+RRBD8io7WZxNgJs3CJRRq9fhHJN8kI1 kujWXRNvLORUKAEOy6vA+gc7IRWwSshqK9fOkFbZ83oaisFtu5rIygRbq3knPszelKWt 4Pk3NsFvp0P7E6xCjP0knCNLn6EmyqQE/E8TnBvoCy3YHXq1jq4oPDr2jR6FQWHkISm9 Qxog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719338472; x=1719943272; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:feedback-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/OKVfsRel0UqymJCjiuMDxyq3qMswL2LAXIuvmvAZXY=; b=VX1rBWSORysHdKnCHT+O18HSXvLnRzVKICp1q/Og867sJ8z2yQD7e7v5Dh7YwlRVxr n4jMWR7dnM8SXhWcEyvqRleYYC86JajnJRW4Jf4mZ6JmgN1qOh3+8stog5jK9BFDwLzR lByzkDSwIA6PPT54mGbc8+R71jm7qYGejL/LWZ+uzTlme5WecA1SjjhTeqZKxy2ZP4no LIDRjhf2n3boBopIWLBuQCkYOpi+F/enS8LpkkDtdEXIwVCkEHM3hd2LbIx2RHOivuPp Y88x0OgFZ99kChvMMsWuH25hK36m6Lce+pvhH4kKHpeRKmrfBzkgUZYYRGn4LBkxCXge S7Yg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVr9bj4nBgxQsOklvAkAzasR4PbeRD1vN/VjEGxG72Qv++0r9oXCm2v5j2n4slkRzZLP6MsI7UFx/w5ylF7syJ5H/s= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy6JNAg5enKEURv0N4mUzxq1IbTrFECzAcSPGgx/wmTd8EDob24 DI8wkzzIe4hzkOA2ANJQ+9JLnASUskgPfOGIeIWXjfFpTWIKwATi X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGR+3VriOIsjusHT82XFZ5KRZyH2qjQ7pZ8fdSqQFUUebO3ZAvqqMxgzzuOQXGgbjUPnxYbJw== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5fc8:0:b0:6b5:42b7:122 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6b542b733c8mr124174736d6.60.1719338471993; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fauth2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fauth2-smtp.messagingengine.com. [103.168.172.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6b53df48dedsm29718736d6.67.2024.06.25.11.01.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8218A1200071; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:51:50 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrtddtgdekhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeeuohhquhhn ucfhvghnghcuoegsohhquhhnrdhfvghnghesghhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfetffevueehhfevfefghedvjeekfeeugfefgeevtdehgedvleeuvedvgeet ffeunecuffhomhgrihhnpehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdplhhptgdrvghvvghnthhsnecuve hluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepsghoqhhunhdo mhgvshhmthhprghuthhhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqieelvdeghedtieegqddujeejke ehheehvddqsghoqhhunhdrfhgvnhhgpeepghhmrghilhdrtghomhesfhhigihmvgdrnhgr mhgv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: iad51458e:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 10:51:13 -0700 From: Boqun Feng To: Leonardo Bras Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Thomas Gleixner , Marcelo Tosatti , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Waiman Long , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Introduce QPW for per-cpu operations Message-ID: References: <20240622035815.569665-1-leobras@redhat.com> <261612b9-e975-4c02-a493-7b83fa17c607@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 23ED840022 X-Stat-Signature: 5nwyjjsnn4f8o8qrm3bwrdenan6pmznd X-HE-Tag: 1719338472-808487 X-HE-Meta: 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 SBIUBnG9 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 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:57:57PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 03:54:14PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 09:31:51AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > you've included tglx, which is great, but there's also LOCKING PRIMITIVES > > > section in MAINTAINERS so I've added folks from there in my reply. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Link to full series: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240622035815.569665-1-leobras@redhat.com/ > > > > > > > And apologies to Leonardo... I think this is a follow-up of: > > > > https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1484/ > > > > and I did remember we had a quick chat after that which I suggested it's > > better to change to a different name, sorry that I never found time to > > write a proper rely to your previous seriese [1] as promised. > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230729083737.38699-2-leobras@redhat.com/ > > That's correct, I commented about this in the end of above presentation. > Don't worry, and thanks for suggesting the per-cpu naming, it was very > helpful on designing this solution. > > > > > > On 6/22/24 5:58 AM, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > > The problem: > > > > Some places in the kernel implement a parallel programming strategy > > > > consisting on local_locks() for most of the work, and some rare remote > > > > operations are scheduled on target cpu. This keeps cache bouncing low since > > > > cacheline tends to be mostly local, and avoids the cost of locks in non-RT > > > > kernels, even though the very few remote operations will be expensive due > > > > to scheduling overhead. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, for RT workloads this can represent a problem: getting > > > > an important workload scheduled out to deal with remote requests is > > > > sure to introduce unexpected deadline misses. > > > > > > > > The idea: > > > > Currently with PREEMPT_RT=y, local_locks() become per-cpu spinlocks. > > > > In this case, instead of scheduling work on a remote cpu, it should > > > > be safe to grab that remote cpu's per-cpu spinlock and run the required > > > > work locally. Tha major cost, which is un/locking in every local function, > > > > already happens in PREEMPT_RT. > > > > > > I've also noticed this a while ago (likely in the context of rewriting SLUB > > > to use local_lock) and asked about it on IRC, and IIRC tglx wasn't fond of > > > the idea. But I forgot the details about why, so I'll let the the locking > > > experts reply... > > > > > > > I think it's a good idea, especially the new name is less confusing ;-) > > So I wonder Thomas' thoughts as well. > > Thanks! > > > > > And I think a few (micro-)benchmark numbers will help. > > Last year I got some numbers on how replacing local_locks with > spinlocks would impact memcontrol.c cache operations: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230125073502.743446-1-leobras@redhat.com/ > > tl;dr: It increased clocks spent in the most common this_cpu operations, > while reducing clocks spent in remote operations (drain_all_stock). > > In RT case, since local locks are already spinlocks, this cost is > already paid, so we can get results like these: > > drain_all_stock > cpus Upstream Patched Diff (cycles) Diff(%) > 1 44331.10831 38978.03581 -5353.072507 -12.07520567 > 8 43992.96512 39026.76654 -4966.198572 -11.2886198 > 128 156274.6634 58053.87421 -98220.78915 -62.85138425 > > Upstream: Clocks to schedule work on remote CPU (performing not accounted) > Patched: Clocks to grab remote cpu's spinlock and perform the needed work > locally. This looks good as a micro-benchmark. And it answers why we need patch #3 in this series. It'll be better if we have something similar for patch #2 and #4. Besides, micro-benchmarks are usually a bit artifical IMO, it's better if we have the data to prove that your changes improve the performance from a more global view. For example, could you find or create a use case where flush_slab() becomes somewhat a hot path? And we can then know the performance gain from your changes in that use case. Maybe Vlastimil has something in his mind already? ;-) Also keep in mind that your changes apply to RT, so a natural follow-up question would be: will it hurt the system latency? I know litte about this area, so I must defer this to experts. The above concern brings another opportunity: would it make sense to use real locks instead of queuing work on a remote CPU in the case when RT is not needed, but CPU isolation is important? I.e. nohz_full situations? > > Do you have other suggestions to use as (micro-) benchmarking? > My overall suggestion is that you do find a valuable pattern where queuing remote work may not be the best option, but usually a real world usage would make more sense for the extra complexity that we will pay. Does this make sense? Regards, Boqun > Thanks! > Leo > > > > > > Regards, > > Boqun > > > > > > Also, there is no need to worry about extra cache bouncing: > > > > The cacheline invalidation already happens due to schedule_work_on(). > > > > > > > > This will avoid schedule_work_on(), and thus avoid scheduling-out an > > > > RT workload. > > > > > > > > For patches 2, 3 & 4, I noticed just grabing the lock and executing > > > > the function locally is much faster than just scheduling it on a > > > > remote cpu. > > > > > > > > Proposed solution: > > > > A new interface called Queue PerCPU Work (QPW), which should replace > > > > Work Queue in the above mentioned use case. > > > > > > > > If PREEMPT_RT=n, this interfaces just wraps the current > > > > local_locks + WorkQueue behavior, so no expected change in runtime. > > > > > > > > If PREEMPT_RT=y, queue_percpu_work_on(cpu,...) will lock that cpu's > > > > per-cpu structure and perform work on it locally. This is possible > > > > because on functions that can be used for performing remote work on > > > > remote per-cpu structures, the local_lock (which is already > > > > a this_cpu spinlock()), will be replaced by a qpw_spinlock(), which > > > > is able to get the per_cpu spinlock() for the cpu passed as parameter. > > > > > > > > Patch 1 implements QPW interface, and patches 2, 3 & 4 replaces the > > > > current local_lock + WorkQueue interface by the QPW interface in > > > > swap, memcontrol & slub interface. > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think on that, and please suggest > > > > improvements. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > Leo > > > > > > > > Leonardo Bras (4): > > > > Introducing qpw_lock() and per-cpu queue & flush work > > > > swap: apply new queue_percpu_work_on() interface > > > > memcontrol: apply new queue_percpu_work_on() interface > > > > slub: apply new queue_percpu_work_on() interface > > > > > > > > include/linux/qpw.h | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > mm/memcontrol.c | 20 ++++++----- > > > > mm/slub.c | 26 ++++++++------ > > > > mm/swap.c | 26 +++++++------- > > > > 4 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/qpw.h > > > > > > > > > > > > base-commit: 50736169ecc8387247fe6a00932852ce7b057083 > > > > > >