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

Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-11T16:17:27Z

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 07:16:37PM +0530, Neeraj upadhyay wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 8:42 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 07:21:55AM +0530, Neeraj upadhyay wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 11:42 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:28:07AM +0530, Neeraj upadhyay wrote:
> > > > > 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);
> > > >
> > > > Linus Torvald's general rule is that if you cannot imagine how a bug
> > > > can happen, don't attempt to clean up after it. His rationale (which
> > > > is *almost* always a good one) is that not knowing how the bug happens
> > > > means that attempts to clean up will usually just make matters worse.
> > > > And all too often, the clean-up code makes debugging more difficult.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok. Thanks for sharing this info!
> > >
> > > > One example exception to this rule is when debug-objects detects a
> > > > duplicate call_rcu(). In that case, we ignore that second call_rcu().
> > > > But the reason is that experience has shown that the usual cause really
> > > > is someone doing a duplicate call_rcu(), and also that ignoring the
> > > > second call_rcu() makes debugging easier.
> > > >
> > > > So what is it that Frederic and I are missing here?
> > >
> > > Maybe nothing. As kworker context does not modify srs_done_tail and
> > > invalid values
> > > of srs_done_tail can only be caused by the GP kthread manipulations
> > > of srs_done_tail , my thought here was, we can keep the pending
> > > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work count consistent with the number of
> > > queue_work() and kworker executions, even when we see unexpected
> > > srs_done_tail values like these. However, as you described the general rule
> > > is to not attempt any clean up for such scenarios.
> >
> > So "if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!done) return;"?
> >
>
> Looks good, nit: one more closing parenthesis "if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!done)) return;"
>
> > Or is there a better way?
> >
>
> I think, above check suffices .

Very well, I will make this change on the next rebase.

Thanx, Paul