From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 3/9] rcu/tree: Reduce wake up for synchronize_rcu() common case
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:35:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZmCTvMVlOMFv0-zd@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240604222355.2370768-3-paulmck@kernel.org>
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:23:49PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
>
> In the synchronize_rcu() common case, we will have less than
> SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP number of users per GP. Waking up the kworker
> is pointless just to free the last injected wait head since at that point,
> all the users have already been awakened.
>
> Introduce a new counter to track this and prevent the wakeup in the
> common case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> kernel/rcu/tree.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 6ba36d9c09bde..2fe08e6186b4d 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static struct rcu_state rcu_state = {
> .ofl_lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
> .srs_cleanup_work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work,
> rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work),
> + .srs_cleanups_pending = ATOMIC_INIT(0),
> };
>
> /* Dump rcu_node combining tree at boot to verify correct setup. */
> @@ -1633,8 +1634,11 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> * the done tail list manipulations are protected here.
> */
> done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> - if (!done)
> + if (!done) {
> + /* See comments below. */
> + atomic_dec_return_release(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
This condition is not supposed to happen. If the work is scheduled,
there has to be a wait_queue in rcu_state.srs_done_tail. And decrementing
may make things worse.
So this should be:
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!done))
return;
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-05 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-04 22:23 [PATCH rcu 0/9] Miscellaneous fixes for v6.11 Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 1/9] rcu: Add lockdep_assert_in_rcu_read_lock() and friends Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-20 19:38 ` Jeff Johnson
2025-02-20 22:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-20 23:51 ` Jeff Johnson
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 2/9] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() delays when all wait heads are in use Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-05 12:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-05 18:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-06 3:46 ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2024-06-06 16:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-11 10:12 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 3/9] rcu/tree: Reduce wake up for synchronize_rcu() common case Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-05 16:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2024-06-05 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-06 5:58 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-06 18:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-07 1:51 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-10 15:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-11 13:46 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-11 16:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 4/9] rcu: Disable interrupts directly in rcu_gp_init() Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 5/9] srcu: Disable interrupts directly in srcu_gp_end() Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 6/9] rcu: Add rcutree.nocb_patience_delay to reduce nohz_full OS jitter Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-10 5:05 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-06-10 15:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-07-03 16:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-07-03 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-07-04 22:18 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-07-05 0:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 7/9] MAINTAINERS: Add Uladzislau Rezki as RCU maintainer Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 8/9] rcu: Eliminate lockless accesses to rcu_sync->gp_count Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 9/9] rcu: Fix rcu_barrier() VS post CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU invocation 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=ZmCTvMVlOMFv0-zd@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=urezki@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