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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B409C43142 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03F026A2A for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:36:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C03F026A2A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754462AbeFZVgz (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:55 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:41022 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752175AbeFZVgx (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:53 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5QLYNgX045426 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:53 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jutw9pc34-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:53 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:51 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.29) by e16.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.203) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:46 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5QLajxU7274756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:36:45 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96EF5B2064; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB77B2065; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.159]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B597716CA1A4; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:38:50 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/27] rcu: Mark task as .need_qs less aggressively Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180626003448.GA26209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180626003513.27812-6-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180626170812.GH2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180626180303.GD3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180626180303.GD3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18062621-0072-0000-0000-00000374DFDB X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009260; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01052758; UDB=6.00539722; IPR=6.00830682; MB=3.00021869; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-26 21:36:50 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18062621-0073-0000-0000-0000487EFECD Message-Id: <20180626213850.GA18033@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-26_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806260238 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:03:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:08:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:34:52PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > If any scheduling-clock interrupt interrupts an RCU-preempt read-side > > > critical section, the interrupted task's ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs > > > field is set. This causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock() to incur the > > > extra overhead of calling into rcu_read_unlock_special(). This commit > > > reduces that overhead by setting ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs only > > > if the grace period has been in effect for more than one second. > > > > Even less agressive is never setting it at all. > > True, but if the CPU has been in an RCU read-side critical section for > a full second (which is the case with high probability when .b.need_qs > is set after this change), we might want to respond to the end of that > critical section sooner rather than later. > > > Changelog fails to explain why not setting it every tick is correct, nor > > why 1s is a 'safe' value to use. > > The RCU CPU stall warning cannot be set to less than 3s, so 1s is > reasonable. It is a tradeoff -- setting it lower causes a greater > fraction of RCU read-side critical sections to incur extra overhead at > rcu_read_unlock() time, while setting it higher keeps a lazy approach > to reporting the quiescent state to core RCU for longer critical sections. > > The upcoming RCU-bh/RCU-preempt/RCU-sched consolidation will raise > contention and overhead, so this is one of several things done to > lower overhead and contention to compensate for that. And does the following updated commit log help? Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ commit aaf8af680740afc363583a6ed9549b08b613dd3d Author: Paul E. McKenney Date: Wed May 16 14:41:41 2018 -0700 rcu: Mark task as .need_qs less aggressively If any scheduling-clock interrupt interrupts an RCU-preempt read-side critical section, the interrupted task's ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs field is set. This causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock() to incur the extra overhead of calling into rcu_read_unlock_special(). This commit reduces that overhead by setting ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs only if the grace period has been in effect for more than one second. Why one second? Because this is comfortably smaller than the minimum RCU CPU stall-warning timeout of three seconds, but long enough that the .need_qs marking should happen quite rarely. And if your RCU read-side critical section has run on-CPU for a full second, it is not unreasonable to invest some CPU time in ending the grace period quickly. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index dbfe90191e19..0239cf8a4be6 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -730,6 +730,7 @@ rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp) */ static void rcu_preempt_check_callbacks(void) { + struct rcu_state *rsp = &rcu_preempt_state; struct task_struct *t = current; if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) { @@ -738,7 +739,9 @@ static void rcu_preempt_check_callbacks(void) } if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0 && __this_cpu_read(rcu_data_p->core_needs_qs) && - __this_cpu_read(rcu_data_p->cpu_no_qs.b.norm)) + __this_cpu_read(rcu_data_p->cpu_no_qs.b.norm) && + !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs && + time_after(jiffies, rsp->gp_start + HZ)) t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = true; }