The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
	dave@stgolabs.net, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
	vineethrp@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 -rcu 2/4] rcu/tree: Make rcu_do_batch count how many callbacks were executed
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:13:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200825201355.GX2855@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200825024842.3408659-3-joel@joelfernandes.org>

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:48:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Currently, rcu_do_batch() depends on the unsegmented callback list's len field
> to know how many CBs are executed. This fields counts down from 0 as CBs are
> dequeued.  It is possible that all CBs could not be run because of reaching
> limits in which case the remaining unexecuted callbacks are requeued in the
> CPU's segcblist.

Again, please mention why the ->cblist.len fields are preserved, namely
due to interactions with rcu_barrier().

> The number of callbacks that were not requeued are then the negative count (how
> many CBs were run) stored in the rcl->len which has been counting down on every
> dequeue. This negative count is then added to the per-cpu segmented callback
> list's to correct its count.
> 
> Such a design works against future efforts to track the length of each segment
> of the segmented callback list. The reason is because
> rcu_segcblist_extract_done_cbs() will have to store the length of the callback
> list in rcl->len to make rcu_segcblist_merge() work.
> 
> Also, the design of counting down from 0 is confusing and error-prone IMHO.
> 
> This commit therefore explicitly counts have many callbacks were executed in
> rcu_do_batch() itself, and uses that to update the per-CPU segcb list's len
> field, without relying on the negativity of rcl->len.

This last, as noted in response to 1/4, should allow rcu_segcblist_merge()
to avoid carrying the callback count separately.

> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c | 2 +-
>  kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h | 1 +
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c          | 9 ++++-----
>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> index b70d4154433c..076337ae2e50 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static void rcu_segcblist_set_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
>   * This increase is fully ordered with respect to the callers accesses
>   * both before and after.
>   */
> -static void rcu_segcblist_add_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
> +void rcu_segcblist_add_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
>  {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
>  	smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* Up to the caller! */
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h
> index 5c293afc07b8..b90725f81d77 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static inline bool rcu_segcblist_restempty(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int seg)
>  }
>  
>  void rcu_segcblist_inc_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp);
> +void rcu_segcblist_add_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v);
>  void rcu_segcblist_init(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp);
>  void rcu_segcblist_disable(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp);
>  void rcu_segcblist_offload(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp);
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 548404489c04..51348144a4ea 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -2419,7 +2419,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  			       rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded(&rdp->cblist);
>  	struct rcu_head *rhp;
>  	struct rcu_cblist rcl = RCU_CBLIST_INITIALIZER(rcl);
> -	long bl, count;
> +	long bl, count = 0;
>  	long pending, tlimit = 0;
>  
>  	/* If no callbacks are ready, just return. */
> @@ -2464,6 +2464,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  	for (; rhp; rhp = rcu_cblist_dequeue(&rcl)) {
>  		rcu_callback_t f;
>  
> +		count++;
>  		debug_rcu_head_unqueue(rhp);
>  
>  		rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_callback_map);
> @@ -2477,9 +2478,8 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * Stop only if limit reached and CPU has something to do.
> -		 * Note: The rcl structure counts down from zero.
>  		 */
> -		if (-rcl.len >= bl && !offloaded &&
> +		if (count >= bl && !offloaded &&
>  		    (need_resched() ||
>  		     (!is_idle_task(current) && !rcu_is_callbacks_kthread())))
>  			break;

Please also replace "-rcl.len" in this if statement with "count":

			/* only call local_clock() every 32 callbacks */
			if (likely((-rcl.len & 31) || local_clock() < tlimit))
				continue;
			/* Exceeded the time limit, so leave. */
			break;

Yeah, it does work either way, but having "count" consistently throughout
is easier on the people reading the code.  And I haven't heard many
complaints about the code being too easy to read...

							Thanx, Paul

> @@ -2502,7 +2502,6 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  
>  	local_irq_save(flags);
>  	rcu_nocb_lock(rdp);
> -	count = -rcl.len;
>  	rdp->n_cbs_invoked += count;
>  	trace_rcu_batch_end(rcu_state.name, count, !!rcl.head, need_resched(),
>  			    is_idle_task(current), rcu_is_callbacks_kthread());
> @@ -2510,7 +2509,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  	/* Update counts and requeue any remaining callbacks. */
>  	rcu_segcblist_insert_done_cbs(&rdp->cblist, &rcl);
>  	smp_mb(); /* List handling before counting for rcu_barrier(). */
> -	rcu_segcblist_insert_count(&rdp->cblist, &rcl);
> +	rcu_segcblist_add_len(&rdp->cblist, -count);
>  
>  	/* Reinstate batch limit if we have worked down the excess. */
>  	count = rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist);
> -- 
> 2.28.0.297.g1956fa8f8d-goog
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-25 20:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-25  2:48 [PATCH v4 -rcu 0/4] Maintain the length of each segment in the segcblist Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-08-25  2:48 ` [PATCH v4 -rcu 1/4] rcu/segcblist: Do not depend on rcl->len to store the segcb len during merge Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-08-25 20:08   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-25 22:47     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-26 14:20       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-27 22:55         ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-28 14:18           ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-01 15:06             ` Joel Fernandes
2020-09-01 16:26               ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-25  2:48 ` [PATCH v4 -rcu 2/4] rcu/tree: Make rcu_do_batch count how many callbacks were executed Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-08-25 20:13   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-08-25  2:48 ` [PATCH v4 -rcu 3/4] rcu/segcblist: Add counters to segcblist datastructure Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-08-25 21:53   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-25 22:51     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-26 14:24       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-28  0:18   ` [rcu/segcblist] ab9a370277: WARNING:at_kernel/rcu/srcutree.c:#cleanup_srcu_struct kernel test robot
2020-08-25  2:48 ` [PATCH v4 -rcu 4/4] rcu/trace: Add tracing for how segcb list changes Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-08-25 21:55   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-25 22:53     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-25 19:58 ` [PATCH v4 -rcu 0/4] Maintain the length of each segment in the segcblist 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=20200825201355.GX2855@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=vineethrp@gmail.com \
    /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