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>,
<zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>, <rcu@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] srcu: Reduce blocking agressiveness of expedited grace periods further
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 09:25:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o7xlzey3.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220701031545.9868-1-quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
Hi folks,
On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 04:15:45 +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 and 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, such 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. Testing done by Marc and Zhangfei confirms that this change recovers
> most of the performance degradation in boottime; for CONFIG_HZ_250 configuration,
> boottime improves from 3m50s to 41s on Marc's setup; and from 2m40s to ~9.7s
> on Zhangfei's setup.
>
> 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>
> Tested-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Tested-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>
Is there any chance for this fix to make it into 5.19? The regression
is significant enough on low-end systems, and I'd rather see it
addressed.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-19 8:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-01 3:15 [PATCH v3] srcu: Reduce blocking agressiveness of expedited grace periods further Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-07-01 4:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-07-01 5:04 ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-07-01 13:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-07-19 8:25 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2022-07-19 17:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-07-20 7:19 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-07-20 18:13 ` 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=87o7xlzey3.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=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=zhangfei.gao@foxmail.com \
--cc=zhangfei.gao@linaro.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