Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] rcu: Make call_rcu() lazy to save power

Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-26T19:32:58Z

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:48:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 05:46:53PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Hi Vlad,
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 10:57:10AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > Implement timer-based RCU lazy callback batching. The batch is flushed
> > > > whenever a certain amount of time has passed, or the batch on a
> > > > particular CPU grows too big. Also memory pressure will flush it in a
> > > > future patch.
> > > >
> > > > To handle several corner cases automagically (such as rcu_barrier() and
> > > > hotplug), we re-use bypass lists to handle lazy CBs. The bypass list
> > > > length has the lazy CB length included in it. A separate lazy CB length
> > > > counter is also introduced to keep track of the number of lazy CBs.
> > > >
> > > > v5->v6:
> > > >
> > > > [ Frederic Weisbec: Program the lazy timer only if WAKE_NOT, since other
> > > > deferral levels wake much earlier so for those it is not needed. ]
> > > >
> > > > [ Frederic Weisbec: Use flush flags to keep bypass API code clean. ]
> > > >
> > > > [ Frederic Weisbec: Make rcu_barrier() wake up only if main list empty. ]
> > > >
> > > > [ Frederic Weisbec: Remove extra 'else if' branch in rcu_nocb_try_bypass(). ]
> > > >
> > > > [ Joel: Fix issue where I was not resetting lazy_len after moving it to rdp ]
> > > >
> > > > [ Paul/Thomas/Joel: Make call_rcu() default lazy so users don't mess up. ]
> > > >
> > > I think it make sense to add some data to the commit message
> > > illustrating what this patch does.
> >
> > Sure, will do!
> >
> > > From my side i gave a try of this patch on my setup. Some data:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > root@pc638:/home/urezki/rcu_v6# ./perf_script_parser ./perf_v6.script | sort -nk 6 | grep rcu
> > > name: rcuop/23 pid: 184 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/26 pid: 206 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/29 pid: 227 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/2 pid: 35 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/33 pid: 256 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/34 pid: 263 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/35 pid: 270 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/36 pid: 277 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/37 pid: 284 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/38 pid: 291 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/49 pid: 370 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/59 pid: 441 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/63 pid: 469 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuog/0 pid: 16 woken-up 2 interval: min 8034 max 8034 avg 4017
> > > name: rcuog/24 pid: 191 woken-up 2 interval: min 7941 max 7941 avg 3970
> > > name: rcuog/32 pid: 248 woken-up 2 interval: min 7542 max 7542 avg 3771
> > > name: rcuog/48 pid: 362 woken-up 2 interval: min 8065 max 8065 avg 4032
> > > name: rcuog/56 pid: 419 woken-up 2 interval: min 8076 max 8076 avg 4038
> > > name: rcuop/21 pid: 170 woken-up 2 interval: min 13311438 max 13311438 avg 6655719
> > > name: rcuog/16 pid: 134 woken-up 4 interval: min 8029 max 13303387 avg 3329863
> > > name: rcuop/9 pid: 85 woken-up 4 interval: min 10007570 max 10007586 avg 7505684
> > > name: rcuog/8 pid: 77 woken-up 8 interval: min 6240 max 10001242 avg 3753622
> > > name: rcu_preempt pid: 15 woken-up 18 interval: min 6058 max 9999713 avg 2140788
> > > name: test_rcu/0 pid: 1411 woken-up 10003 interval: min 165 max 19072 avg 4275
> > > root@pc638:/home/urezki/rcu_v6#
> > >
> > > root@pc638:/home/urezki/rcu_v6# ./perf_script_parser ./perf_default.script | sort -nk 6 | grep rcu
> > > name: rcuop/33 pid: 256 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuop/51 pid: 384 woken-up 1 interval: min 0 max 0 avg 0
> > > name: rcuog/32 pid: 248 woken-up 2 interval: min 11927 max 11927 avg 5963
> > > name: rcuop/63 pid: 469 woken-up 2 interval: min 23963 max 23963 avg 11981
> > > name: rcuog/56 pid: 419 woken-up 3 interval: min 11132 max 23967 avg 11699
> > > name: rcuop/50 pid: 377 woken-up 3 interval: min 8057 max 4944344 avg 1650800
> > > name: rcuog/48 pid: 362 woken-up 8 interval: min 2712 max 37430015 avg 5298801
> > > name: rcuop/16 pid: 135 woken-up 4790 interval: min 7340 max 16649 avg 8843
> > > name: rcuog/16 pid: 134 woken-up 4792 interval: min 7368 max 16644 avg 8844
> > > name: rcu_preempt pid: 15 woken-up 5302 interval: min 26 max 12179 avg 7994
> > > name: test_rcu/0 pid: 1353 woken-up 10003 interval: min 169 max 18508 avg 4236
> > > root@pc638:/home/urezki/rcu_v6#
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > so it is obvious that the patch does the job.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for testing!
> >
> > > On my KVM machine the boot time is affected:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > [ 2.273406] e1000 0000:00:03.0 eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> > > [ 11.945283] e1000 0000:00:03.0 ens3: renamed from eth0
> > > [ 22.165198] sr 1:0:0:0: [sr0] scsi3-mmc drive: 4x/4x cd/rw xa/form2 tray
> > > [ 22.165206] cdrom: Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.20
> > > [ 32.406981] sr 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi CD-ROM sr0
> > > [ 104.115418] process '/usr/bin/fstype' started with executable stack
> > > [ 104.170142] EXT4-fs (sda1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Quota mode: none.
> > > [ 104.340125] systemd[1]: systemd 241 running in system mode. (+PAM +AUDIT +SELINUX +IMA +APPARMOR +SMACK +SYSVINIT +UTMP +LIBCRYPTSETUP +GCRYPT +GNUTLS +ACL +XZ +LZ4 +SECCOMP +BLKID +ELFUTILS +KMOD -IDN2 +IDN -PCRE2 default-hierarchy=hybrid)
> > > [ 104.340193] systemd[1]: Detected virtualization kvm.
> > > [ 104.340196] systemd[1]: Detected architecture x86-64.
> > > [ 104.359032] systemd[1]: Set hostname to <pc638>.
> > > [ 105.740109] random: crng init done
> > > [ 105.741267] systemd[1]: Reached target Remote File Systems.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > 2 - 11 and second delay is between 32 - 104. So there are still users which must
> > > be waiting for "RCU" in a sync way.
> >
> > I was wondering if you can compare boot logs and see which timestamp does the
> > slow down start from. That way, we can narrow down the callback. Also another
> > idea is, add "trace_event=rcu:rcu_callback,rcu:rcu_invoke_callback
> > ftrace_dump_on_oops" to the boot params, and then manually call
> > "tracing_off(); panic();" from the code at the first printk that seems off in
> > your comparison of good vs bad. For example, if "crng init done" timestamp is
> > off, put the "tracing_off(); panic();" there. Then grab the serial console
> > output to see what were the last callbacks that was queued/invoked.
>
> We do seem to be in need of some way to quickly and easily locate the
> callback that needed to be _flush() due to a wakeup.
>
<snip>
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index aeea9731ef80..fe1146d97f1a 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ bool queue_rcu_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq, struct rcu_work *rwork)

if (!test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work))) {
rwork->wq = wq;
- call_rcu(&rwork->rcu, rcu_work_rcufn);
+ call_rcu_flush(&rwork->rcu, rcu_work_rcufn);
return true;
}

<snip>

?

But it does not fully solve my boot-up issue. Will debug tomorrow further.

> Might one more proactive approach be to use Coccinelle to locate such
> callback functions? We might not want -all- callbacks that do wakeups
> to use call_rcu_flush(), but knowing which are which should speed up
> slow-boot debugging by quite a bit.
>
> Or is there a better way to do this?
>
I am not sure what Coccinelle is. If we had something automated that measures
a boot time and if needed does some profiling it would be good. Otherwise it
is a manual debugging mainly, IMHO.

--
Uladzislau Rezki