From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
To: Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Martin Kletzander <nert.pinx@gmail.com>,
Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/resctrl: Don't workqueue local event counter reads
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:20:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e2f31bf-1035-40a6-b16d-081d6e45ead8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALPaoCgc13hS64mSWvn6zYQWwVKzcyF8xueWsaP62ZZJiv+nog@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Peter,
On 11/5/24 3:25 AM, Peter Newman wrote:
> Hi Fenghua,
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:36 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Peter,
>>
>> On 10/31/24 07:25, Peter Newman wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c
>>> index 200d89a640270..daaff1cfd3f24 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c
>>> @@ -541,6 +541,31 @@ void mon_event_read(struct rmid_read *rr, struct rdt_resource *r,
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * If a performance-conscious caller has gone to the trouble of binding
>>> + * their thread to the monitoring domain of the event counter, ensure
>>> + * that the counters are read directly. smp_call_on_cpu()
>>> + * unconditionally uses a work queue to read the counter, substantially
>>> + * increasing the cost of the read.
>>> + *
>>> + * Preemption must be disabled to prevent a migration out of the domain
>>> + * after the CPU is checked, which would result in reading the wrong
>>> + * counters. Note that this makes the (slow) remote path a little slower
>>> + * by requiring preemption to be reenabled when redirecting the request
>>> + * to another domain was in fact necessary.
>>> + *
>>> + * In the case where all eligible target CPUs are nohz_full and
>>> + * smp_call_function_any() is used, keep preemption disabled to avoid
>>> + * the cost of reenabling it twice in the same read.
>>> + */
>>> + cpu = get_cpu();
>>> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpumask)) {
>>> + mon_event_count(rr);
>>> + resctrl_arch_mon_ctx_free(r, evtid, rr->arch_mon_ctx);
>>> + put_cpu();
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>
>> This fast path code is a duplicate part of smp_call_funcion_any().
>>
>> In nohz_full() case, the fast path doesn't gain much and even hurts
>> remote domain performance:
>> 1. On local domain, it may gain a little bit because it has a few lines
>> less than directly calling smp_call_function_any(). But the gain is
>> minor due to a lines less code, not due to heavy weight queued work.
>>
>> 2. On remote domain, it degrades performance because get_cpu() and
>> put_cpu() are both called twice: one in the fast path code and one in
>> smp_call_function_any(). As you mentioned earlier, put_cpu() impacts
>> performance. I think get_cpu() has same impact too.
>
> get_cpu() and put_cpu() nest, so only the put_cpu() that reduces the
> preempt count to 0 will call into the scheduler. See the source
> comment I had added below.
>
> But... note that below smp_call_on_cpu() is now called with preemption
> disabled. (Looks like I only benchmarked and never ran a debug
> build...) I will have to change the patch to make sure put_cpu() is
> called before smp_call_on_cpu().
>
>
>>
>> The fast path only gains in none nohz_full() case.
>>
>> So maybe it's better to move the fast path code into the non nohz_full()
>> case? With this change, you may have the following benefits:
>>
>> 1. No performance impact on nohz_full() case (either local or remote
>> domain).
>> 2. Improve performance on non nohz_full() case as you intended in this
>> patch.
>> 3. The fast path focuses on fixing the right performance bottleneck.
>
> The consequence of reusing the current-cpu-in-mask check in
> smp_call_function_any() is that if the check fails, it could cause
> resctrl_arch_rmid_read() to fail by invoking it in an IPI handler when
> it would have succeeded if invoked on a kernel worker, undoing James's
> original work.
I think this change already undoes the motivation for 09909e098113
("x86/resctrl: Queue mon_event_read() instead of sending an IPI")? As you mention in
changelog the goal of that work was to enable resctrl_arch_rmid_read() to sleep.
This change will call resctrl_arch_rmid_read() with preemption disabled if
it happens to be called on CPU in monitoring domain. Would that not cause
MPAM monitor count reads from CPU in domain to be a bug?
Could you please try out this patch with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y?
Reinette
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-05 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-31 14:25 [PATCH 1/2] selftests/resctrl: fastcat for benchmarking counter reads Peter Newman
2024-10-31 14:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/resctrl: Don't workqueue local event " Peter Newman
2024-11-01 18:35 ` Luck, Tony
2024-11-04 22:36 ` Fenghua Yu
2024-11-04 22:56 ` Luck, Tony
2024-11-04 23:59 ` Fenghua Yu
2024-11-05 0:12 ` Luck, Tony
2024-11-05 3:29 ` Fenghua Yu
2024-11-05 11:25 ` Peter Newman
2024-11-05 23:20 ` Reinette Chatre [this message]
2024-11-05 23:39 ` Luck, Tony
2024-11-06 0:13 ` Reinette Chatre
2024-11-06 9:42 ` Peter Newman
2024-11-06 17:12 ` Luck, Tony
2024-11-06 15:52 ` Peter Newman
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=4e2f31bf-1035-40a6-b16d-081d6e45ead8@intel.com \
--to=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=babu.moger@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nert.pinx@gmail.com \
--cc=peternewman@google.com \
--cc=tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@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