Re: [PATCH rcu 3/9] rcu/tree: Reduce wake up for synchronize_rcu() common case

Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-06T05:58:21Z

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:05 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I also don't see a scenario where this can happen. However, if we are
returning from here, given that for every queued work we do an
increment of rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending, I think it's safer to
decrement in this
case, as that counter tracks only the work queuing and execution counts.

atomic_inc(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);
if (!queue_work(sync_wq, &rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work))
atomic_dec(&rcu_state.srs_cleanups_pending);

Thanks
Neeraj

> So this should be:
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!done))
> return;
>
> Thanks.
>