From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.14-rc4 latency issue with rcu_process_callbacks()/file_free_rcu()
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:31:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051020163116.GA23262@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4357BE1C.9080004@cosmosbay.com>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:56:12PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Dimitri Sivanich a écrit :
> >Just bringing up a latency issue I've noticed recently.
> >
> >In or around 2.6.14-rc4 some changes were made to have the call to
> >kmem_cache_free() from file_free() in the Linux kernel be deferred, running
> >as a tasklet via file_free_rcu(), rather than running kmem_cache_free()
> >right from file_free() directly.
> >
> >I've noticed that rcu_process_callbacks() can take quite a while to run
> >now that it routinely calls file_free_rcu() to run kmem_cache_free().
> >This can make the cpu unavailable for 100's of usec on 1GHz machines, with
> >or without preemption configured on (much of this path is non-preemptible).
> >
> >This can result in some unpredictable periods of fairly long cpu latency,
> >such as when a thread is waiting to be woken by an interrupt handler on a
> >'now quiet' cpu. Changing file_free() to call kmem_cache_free() directly
> >completely eliminates this unexpected latency.
>
> Well, you cannot change file_free() to call kmem_cache_free() directly, or
> risk corruption/crash.
>
> See Documentation/RCU/UP.txt
OK. I'll have to look at this more closely. I simply ran across this as a
substantial change between this and earlier kernels and decided to test
against the original file_free()->kmem_cache_free() code to ensure that that
alone was indeed the issue (for the circumstance I'll describe below).
>
> Dont you notice latency issue with other RCU protected data, like dentries ?
No, but here's the circumstance under which I notice this:
I'm running on a single cpu of an SMP system (4 cpu). When I hit this I'm in
a situation where I've written some file data, and am now sleeping waiting to
be woken up. No other threads are running on that cpu other than a few kernel
threads, so all is fairly quiet.
By the simple one line change (file_free() calling kmem_cache_free() again),
I'm always woken up very quickly. Too bad we cannot revert back that way
with the rcu changes.
>
> BTW a change in 2.6.14-rc5 might give different latency results.
I'll look at this as soon as I get a chance.
>
> Eric
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-20 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-20 14:07 2.6.14-rc4 latency issue with rcu_process_callbacks()/file_free_rcu() Dimitri Sivanich
2005-10-20 15:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-10-20 16:31 ` Dimitri Sivanich [this message]
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=20051020163116.GA23262@sgi.com \
--to=sivanich@sgi.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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