From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:56:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131002150518.600557855@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20131002145655.361606532@infradead.org
[-- Attachment #1: peterz-per-cpu-hotplug.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 11830 bytes --]
The current implementation of get_online_cpus() is global of nature
and thus not suited for any kind of common usage.
Re-implement the current recursive r/w cpu hotplug lock such that the
read side locks are as light as possible.
The current cpu hotplug lock is entirely reader biased; but since
readers are expensive there aren't a lot of them about and writer
starvation isn't a particular problem.
However by making the reader side more usable there is a fair chance
it will get used more and thus the starvation issue becomes a real
possibility.
Therefore this new implementation is fair, alternating readers and
writers; this however requires per-task state to allow the reader
recursion -- this new task_struct member is placed in a 4 byte hole on
64bit builds.
Many comments are contributed by Paul McKenney, and many previous
attempts were shown to be inadequate by both Paul and Oleg; many
thanks to them for persisting to poke holes in my attempts.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
---
include/linux/cpu.h | 67 ++++++++++++++
include/linux/sched.h | 3
kernel/cpu.c | 226 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
kernel/sched/core.c | 2
4 files changed, 235 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
#include <linux/node.h>
#include <linux/compiler.h>
#include <linux/cpumask.h>
+#include <linux/percpu.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
struct device;
@@ -173,10 +175,69 @@ extern struct bus_type cpu_subsys;
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
/* Stop CPUs going up and down. */
+extern void cpu_hotplug_init_task(struct task_struct *p);
+
extern void cpu_hotplug_begin(void);
extern void cpu_hotplug_done(void);
-extern void get_online_cpus(void);
-extern void put_online_cpus(void);
+
+extern int __cpuhp_state;
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, __cpuhp_refcount);
+
+extern void __get_online_cpus(void);
+
+static inline void get_online_cpus(void)
+{
+ might_sleep();
+
+ /* Support reader recursion */
+ /* The value was >= 1 and remains so, reordering causes no harm. */
+ if (current->cpuhp_ref++)
+ return;
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ /*
+ * We are in an RCU-sched read-side critical section, so the writer
+ * cannot both change __cpuhp_state from readers_fast and start
+ * checking counters while we are here. So if we see !__cpuhp_state,
+ * we know that the writer won't be checking until we past the
+ * preempt_enable() and that once the synchronize_sched() is done, the
+ * writer will see anything we did within this RCU-sched read-side
+ * critical section.
+ */
+ if (likely(!__cpuhp_state))
+ __this_cpu_inc(__cpuhp_refcount);
+ else
+ __get_online_cpus(); /* Unconditional memory barrier. */
+ preempt_enable();
+ /*
+ * The barrier() from preempt_enable() prevents the compiler from
+ * bleeding the critical section out.
+ */
+}
+
+extern void __put_online_cpus(void);
+
+static inline void put_online_cpus(void)
+{
+ /* The value was >= 1 and remains so, reordering causes no harm. */
+ if (--current->cpuhp_ref)
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * The barrier() in preempt_disable() prevents the compiler from
+ * bleeding the critical section out.
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
+ /*
+ * Same as in get_online_cpus().
+ */
+ if (likely(!__cpuhp_state))
+ __this_cpu_dec(__cpuhp_refcount);
+ else
+ __put_online_cpus(); /* Unconditional memory barrier. */
+ preempt_enable();
+}
+
extern void cpu_hotplug_disable(void);
extern void cpu_hotplug_enable(void);
#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri) cpu_notifier(fn, pri)
@@ -200,6 +261,8 @@ static inline void cpu_hotplug_driver_un
#else /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU */
+static inline void cpu_hotplug_init_task(struct task_struct *p) {}
+
static inline void cpu_hotplug_begin(void) {}
static inline void cpu_hotplug_done(void) {}
#define get_online_cpus() do { } while (0)
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1039,6 +1039,9 @@ struct task_struct {
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
struct llist_node wake_entry;
int on_cpu;
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+ int cpuhp_ref;
+#endif
struct task_struct *last_wakee;
unsigned long wakee_flips;
unsigned long wakee_flip_decay_ts;
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -49,88 +49,192 @@ static int cpu_hotplug_disabled;
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
-static struct {
- struct task_struct *active_writer;
- struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
- /*
- * Also blocks the new readers during
- * an ongoing cpu hotplug operation.
- */
- int refcount;
-} cpu_hotplug = {
- .active_writer = NULL,
- .lock = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(cpu_hotplug.lock),
- .refcount = 0,
-};
+enum { readers_fast = 0, readers_slow, readers_block };
-void get_online_cpus(void)
+int __cpuhp_state;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__cpuhp_state);
+
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, __cpuhp_refcount);
+EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL(__cpuhp_refcount);
+
+static atomic_t cpuhp_waitcount;
+static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(cpuhp_readers);
+static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(cpuhp_writer);
+
+void cpu_hotplug_init_task(struct task_struct *p)
{
- might_sleep();
- if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
+ p->cpuhp_ref = 0;
+}
+
+void __get_online_cpus(void)
+{
+again:
+ __this_cpu_inc(__cpuhp_refcount);
+
+ /*
+ * Due to having preemption disabled the decrement happens on
+ * the same CPU as the increment, avoiding the
+ * increment-on-one-CPU-and-decrement-on-another problem.
+ *
+ * And yes, if the reader misses the writer's assignment of
+ * readers_block to __cpuhp_state, then the writer is
+ * guaranteed to see the reader's increment. Conversely, any
+ * readers that increment their __cpuhp_refcount after the
+ * writer looks are guaranteed to see the readers_block value,
+ * which in turn means that they are guaranteed to immediately
+ * decrement their __cpuhp_refcount, so that it doesn't matter
+ * that the writer missed them.
+ */
+
+ smp_mb(); /* A matches D */
+
+ if (likely(__cpuhp_state != readers_block))
return;
- mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
- cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
- mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
+ /*
+ * Make sure an outgoing writer sees the waitcount to ensure we
+ * make progress.
+ */
+ atomic_inc(&cpuhp_waitcount);
+
+ /*
+ * Per the above comment; we still have preemption disabled and
+ * will thus decrement on the same CPU as we incremented.
+ */
+ __put_online_cpus();
+
+ /*
+ * We either call schedule() in the wait, or we'll fall through
+ * and reschedule on the preempt_enable() in get_online_cpus().
+ */
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
+ __wait_event(cpuhp_readers, __cpuhp_state != readers_block);
+ preempt_disable();
+
+ /*
+ * Given we've still got preempt_disabled and new cpu_hotplug_begin()
+ * must do a synchronize_sched() we're guaranteed a successfull
+ * acquisition this time -- even if we wake the current
+ * cpu_hotplug_end() now.
+ */
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&cpuhp_waitcount))
+ wake_up(&cpuhp_writer);
+
+ goto again:
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_online_cpus);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__get_online_cpus);
-void put_online_cpus(void)
+void __put_online_cpus(void)
{
- if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
- return;
- mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
+ smp_mb(); /* B matches C */
+ /*
+ * In other words, if they see our decrement (presumably to aggregate
+ * zero, as that is the only time it matters) they will also see our
+ * critical section.
+ */
+ this_cpu_dec(__cpuhp_refcount);
+
+ /* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */
+ wake_up(&cpuhp_writer);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_online_cpus);
+
+#define per_cpu_sum(var) \
+({ \
+ typeof(var) __sum = 0; \
+ int cpu; \
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) \
+ __sum += per_cpu(var, cpu); \
+ __sum; \
+)}
- if (WARN_ON(!cpu_hotplug.refcount))
- cpu_hotplug.refcount++; /* try to fix things up */
+/*
+ * See srcu_readers_active_idx_check() for a rather more detailed explanation.
+ */
+static bool cpuhp_readers_active_check(void)
+{
+ if (per_cpu_sum(__cpuhp_refcount) != 0)
+ return false;
- if (!--cpu_hotplug.refcount && unlikely(cpu_hotplug.active_writer))
- wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug.active_writer);
- mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
+ /*
+ * If we observed the decrement; ensure we see the entire critical
+ * section.
+ */
+
+ smp_mb(); /* C matches B */
+ return true;
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_online_cpus);
/*
- * This ensures that the hotplug operation can begin only when the
- * refcount goes to zero.
- *
- * Note that during a cpu-hotplug operation, the new readers, if any,
- * will be blocked by the cpu_hotplug.lock
- *
- * Since cpu_hotplug_begin() is always called after invoking
- * cpu_maps_update_begin(), we can be sure that only one writer is active.
- *
- * Note that theoretically, there is a possibility of a livelock:
- * - Refcount goes to zero, last reader wakes up the sleeping
- * writer.
- * - Last reader unlocks the cpu_hotplug.lock.
- * - A new reader arrives at this moment, bumps up the refcount.
- * - The writer acquires the cpu_hotplug.lock finds the refcount
- * non zero and goes to sleep again.
- *
- * However, this is very difficult to achieve in practice since
- * get_online_cpus() not an api which is called all that often.
- *
+ * This will notify new readers to block and wait for all active readers to
+ * complete.
*/
void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
{
- cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;
+ /*
+ * Since cpu_hotplug_begin() is always called after invoking
+ * cpu_maps_update_begin(), we can be sure that only one writer is
+ * active.
+ */
+ lockdep_assert_held(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
+
+ /* Allow reader-in-writer recursion. */
+ current->cpuhp_ref++;
+
+ /* Notify readers to take the slow path. */
+ __cpuhp_state = readers_slow;
+
+ /* See percpu_down_write(); guarantees all readers take the slow path */
+ synchronize_sched();
+
+ /*
+ * Notify new readers to block; up until now, and thus throughout the
+ * longish synchronize_sched() above, new readers could still come in.
+ */
+ __cpuhp_state = readers_block;
- for (;;) {
- mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
- if (likely(!cpu_hotplug.refcount))
- break;
- __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
- mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
- schedule();
- }
+ smp_mb(); /* D matches A */
+
+ /*
+ * If they don't see our writer of readers_block to __cpuhp_state,
+ * then we are guaranteed to see their __cpuhp_refcount increment, and
+ * therefore will wait for them.
+ */
+
+ /* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */
+ wait_event(cpuhp_writer, cpuhp_readers_active_check());
}
void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
{
- cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
- mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
+ /*
+ * Signal the writer is done, no fast path yet.
+ *
+ * One reason that we cannot just immediately flip to readers_fast is
+ * that new readers might fail to see the results of this writer's
+ * critical section.
+ */
+ __cpuhp_state = readers_slow;
+ wake_up_all(&cpuhp_readers);
+
+ /*
+ * The wait_event()/wake_up_all() prevents the race where the readers
+ * are delayed between fetching __cpuhp_state and blocking.
+ */
+
+ /* See percpu_up_write(); readers will no longer attempt to block. */
+ synchronize_sched();
+
+ /* Let 'em rip */
+ __cpuhp_state = readers_fast;
+ current->cpuhp_ref--;
+
+ /*
+ * Wait for any pending readers to be running. This ensures readers
+ * after writer and avoids writers starving readers.
+ */
+ wait_event(cpuhp_writer, !atomic_read(&cpuhp_waitcount));
}
/*
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1635,6 +1635,8 @@ static void __sched_fork(struct task_str
p->numa_scan_period = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay;
p->numa_work.next = &p->numa_work;
#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING */
+
+ cpu_hotplug_init_task(p);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-02 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-02 14:56 [PATCH 0/3] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-02 14:56 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-10-03 14:01 ` [PATCH 1/3] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus() Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 16:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 16:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-02 14:56 ` [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-02 15:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-03 16:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-08 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 16:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 17:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-03 17:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 18:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 18:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 18:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-03 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 19:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-03 19:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-03 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 20:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-03 21:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-03 22:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-04 11:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 16:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-04 7:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 11:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 11:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 11:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 11:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 12:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 12:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 13:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 15:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 16:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 19:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 19:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-05 17:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-04 7:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 20:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-10-04 7:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-02 14:56 ` [PATCH 3/3] hotplug: Optimize cpu_hotplug_{begin,done}() using rcu_sync Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 18:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 18:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-03 19:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20131002150518.600557855@infradead.org \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).