The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
Cc: <paulmck@kernel.org>, <frederic@kernel.org>,
	<josh@joshtriplett.org>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	<joel@joelfernandes.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<zhangfei.gao@foxmail.com>, <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	<urezki@gmail.com>, <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
	<pbonzini@redhat.com>, <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	<eric.auger@redhat.com>, <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] srcu: Reduce blocking agressiveness of expedited grace periods further
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:31:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <874k052kxh.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc24db89-05ae-c113-6728-de797e041123@quicinc.com>

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:17:24 +0100,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/28/2022 2:32 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:37:06 +0100,
> > Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Commit 640a7d37c3f4 ("srcu: Block less aggressively for expedited
> >> grace periods") highlights a problem where aggressively blocking
> >> SRCU expedited grace periods, as was introduced in commit
> >> 282d8998e997 ("srcu: Prevent expedited GPs and blocking readers
> >> from consuming CPU"), introduces ~2 minutes delay to the overall
> >> ~3.5 minutes boot time, when starting VMs with "-bios QEMU_EFI.fd"
> >> cmdline on qemu, which results in very high rate of memslots
> >> add/remove, which causes > ~6000 synchronize_srcu() calls for
> >> kvm->srcu SRCU instance.
> >> 
> >> Below table captures the experiments done by Zhangfei Gao, Shameer,
> >> to measure the boottime impact with various values of non-sleeping
> >> per phase counts, with HZ_250 and preemption enabled:
> >> 
> >> +──────────────────────────+────────────────+
> >> | SRCU_MAX_NODELAY_PHASE   | Boot time (s)  |
> >> +──────────────────────────+────────────────+
> >> | 100                      | 30.053         |
> >> | 150                      | 25.151         |
> >> | 200                      | 20.704         |
> >> | 250                      | 15.748         |
> >> | 500                      | 11.401         |
> >> | 1000                     | 11.443         |
> >> | 10000                    | 11.258         |
> >> | 1000000                  | 11.154         |
> >> +──────────────────────────+────────────────+
> >> 
> >> Analysis on the experiment results showed improved boot time
> >> with non blocking delays close to one jiffy duration. This
> >> was also seen when number of per-phase iterations were scaled
> >> to one jiffy.
> >> 
> >> So, this change scales per-grace-period phase number of non-sleeping
> >> polls, soiuch that, non-sleeping polls are done for one jiffy. In addition
> >> to this, srcu_get_delay() call in srcu_gp_end(), which is used to calculate
> >> the delay used for scheduling callbacks, is replaced with the check for
> >> expedited grace period. This is done, to schedule cbs for completed expedited
> >> grace periods immediately, which results in improved boot time seen in
> >> experiments.
> >> 
> >> In addition to the changes to default per phase delays, this change
> >> adds 3 new kernel parameters - srcutree.srcu_max_nodelay,
> >> srcutree.srcu_max_nodelay_phase, srcutree.srcu_retry_check_delay.
> >> This allows users to configure the srcu grace period scanning delays,
> >> depending on their system configuration requirements.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
> > 
> > I've given this a go on one of my test platforms (the one I noticed
> > the issue on the first place), and found that the initial part of the
> > EFI boot under KVM (pointlessly wiping the emulated flash) went down
> > to 1m7s from 3m50s (HZ=250).
> > 
> > Clearly a massive improvement, but still a far cry from the original
> > ~40s (yes, this box is utter crap -- which is why I use it).
> 
> Do you see any improvement by using "srcutree.srcu_max_nodelay=1000"
> bootarg, on top of this patch?

Yup, this brings it back to 43s on a quick test run, which is close
enough to what I had before.

How does a random user come up with such a value though?

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-28  9:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-27 12:37 [PATCH] srcu: Reduce blocking agressiveness of expedited grace periods further Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-27 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-06-28  3:15   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-28  4:26     ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-06-28  2:14 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-28  3:22   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-28  4:03     ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-28  4:24       ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-06-28  4:26       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-28  9:19       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-28  9:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-06-28  9:17   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-28  9:31     ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2022-06-28 10:02       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-28 13:46       ` 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=874k052kxh.wl-maz@kernel.org \
    --to=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=chenxiang66@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=zhangfei.gao@foxmail.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