From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE1BC326951 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773247070; cv=none; b=C+0VF1rdvt/Zx3Ouv14DNbzVek+YQMcJK6j1HQz3Y7M5n/Bo9qR+FTgd57061bY2bz+kV+Vzlzxvp2IEpBzwv4SZrgQwQgE71wkgILKPGKAT/GbYp8c+5VgS1Le0Yt6UCn0UOQerh99CemvyelGX8eyHu+IFHZNk0CXlng+7jII= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773247070; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5OvuHZyQrLn200Z63geYiTj5JvynNGQ7QO/CdyCFQAs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Py4lOb+OUho59pWyzAREPZYM0duZia8X1iFk+5ptc7GXj/mWrdcdVJ3uhAdVzk/lJwuzeOu22O5td+Pm1bD4ezQS9yYOZvL2sSQiAgLFwpYi2PLJ08TnSk3lSEkgXy529cJapgiTTy/PnK6QVXzJTE66nzw0a/V6DJyBINsJC/c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=H1JluSqR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="H1JluSqR" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1773247067; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=R/zsIrZ3k0UmQpOmPvuPlBsjs52eW5q3aaq8jYkZIKQ=; b=H1JluSqR4FB4degTc21wgUdJPJh2K8uIP/pwWszWE0jnVJmOtkP03bTx7guzH41VTWcO0G CTU7fHcQreX+K8D6arGsntLgLccfn/SktiemqgWFwvaHjaXo3cuIbAdI4jP09jLZIKVloA kXLTrGxTSU3ATpV+TA1jGBRQf9d6CEU= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-661-032I48B1PwuD_vNs1Xdqig-1; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 12:37:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 032I48B1PwuD_vNs1Xdqig-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 032I48B1PwuD_vNs1Xdqig_1773247060 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 855CE195609E; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tpad.localdomain (unknown [10.96.133.6]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC843000223; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:37:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by tpad.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 71EC1401E2187; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:23:32 -0300 (-03) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:23:32 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Leonardo Bras Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Vlastimil Babka , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Leonardo Bras , Thomas Gleixner , Waiman Long , Boqun Feng , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce QPW for per-cpu operations Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 09:03:41PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 06:24:02PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 08, 2026 at 02:41:12PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 09:19:44PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 10:23:27PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:06:32AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Fri 20-02-26 18:58:14, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:00:55PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat 14-02-26 19:02:19, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed 11-02-26 09:01:12, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 03:01:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > What about !PREEMPT_RT? We have people running isolated workloads and > > > > > > > > > > > > these sorts of pcp disruptions are really unwelcome as well. They do not > > > > > > > > > > > > have requirements as strong as RT workloads but the underlying > > > > > > > > > > > > fundamental problem is the same. Frederic (now CCed) is working on > > > > > > > > > > > > moving those pcp book keeping activities to be executed to the return to > > > > > > > > > > > > the userspace which should be taking care of both RT and non-RT > > > > > > > > > > > > configurations AFAICS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michal, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For !PREEMPT_RT, _if_ you select CONFIG_QPW=y, then there is a kernel > > > > > > > > > > > boot option qpw=y/n, which controls whether the behaviour will be > > > > > > > > > > > similar (the spinlock is taken on local_lock, similar to PREEMPT_RT). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My bad. I've misread the config space of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If CONFIG_QPW=n, or kernel boot option qpw=n, then only local_lock > > > > > > > > > > > (and remote work via work_queue) is used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "pcp book keeping activities" you refer to ? I don't see how > > > > > > > > > > > moving certain activities that happen under SLUB or LRU spinlocks > > > > > > > > > > > to happen before return to userspace changes things related > > > > > > > > > > > to avoidance of CPU interruption ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially delayed operations like pcp state flushing happens on return > > > > > > > > > > to the userspace on isolated CPUs. No locking changes are required as > > > > > > > > > > the work is still per-cpu. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words the approach Frederic is working on is to not change the > > > > > > > > > > locking of pcp delayed work but instead move that work into well defined > > > > > > > > > > place - i.e. return to the userspace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw. have you measure the impact of preempt_disbale -> spinlock on hot > > > > > > > > > > paths like SLUB sheeves? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have done some study on this (which I presented on Plumbers 2023): > > > > > > > > > https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1484/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since they are per-cpu spinlocks, and the remote operations are not that > > > > > > > > > frequent, as per design of the current approach, we are not supposed to see > > > > > > > > > contention (I was not able to detect contention even after stress testing > > > > > > > > > for weeks), nor relevant cacheline bouncing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, for RT local_locks already get per-cpu spinlocks, so there > > > > > > > > > is only difference for !RT, which as you mention, does preemtp_disable(): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The performance impact noticed was mostly about jumping around in > > > > > > > > > executable code, as inlining spinlocks (test #2 on presentation) took care > > > > > > > > > of most of the added extra cycles, adding about 4-14 extra cycles per > > > > > > > > > lock/unlock cycle. (tested on memcg with kmalloc test) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, as expected there is some extra cycles, as we are doing extra atomic > > > > > > > > > operations (even if in a local cacheline) in !RT case, but this could be > > > > > > > > > enabled only if the user thinks this is an ok cost for reducing > > > > > > > > > interruptions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the behavior is opt-in for !RT is certainly a plus. I also > > > > > > > > do not expect the overhead to be really be really big. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awesome! Thanks for reviewing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, a much > > > > > > > > more important question is which of the two approaches is easier to > > > > > > > > maintain long term. The pcp work needs to be done one way or the other. > > > > > > > > Whether we want to tweak locking or do it at a very well defined time is > > > > > > > > the bigger question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That crossed my mind as well, and I went with the idea of changing locking > > > > > > > because I was working on workloads in which deferring work to a kernel > > > > > > > re-entry would cause deadline misses as well. Or more critically, the > > > > > > > drains could take forever, as some of those tasks would avoid returning to > > > > > > > kernel as much as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please? > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > Sorry for the delay > > > > > > > > > > I think Marcelo covered some of the main topics earlier in this > > > > > thread: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/aZ3ejedS7nE5mnva@tpad/ > > > > > > > > > > But in syntax: > > > > > - There are workloads that are projected not avoid as much as possible > > > > > return to kernelspace, as they are either cpu intensive, or latency > > > > > sensitive (RT workloads) such as low-latency automation. > > > > > > > > > > There are scenarios such as industrial automation in which > > > > > the applications are supposed to reply a request in less than 50us since it > > > > > was generated (IIRC), so sched-out, dealing with interruptions, or syscalls > > > > > are a no-go. In those cases, using cpu isolation is a must, and since it > > > > > can stay really long running in userspace, it may take a very long time to > > > > > do any syscall to actually perform the scheduled flush. > > > > > > > > > > - Other workloads may need to use syscalls, or rely in interrupts, such as > > > > > HPC, but it's also not interesting to take long on them, as the time spent > > > > > there is time not used for processing the required data. > > > > > > > > > > Let's say that for the sake of cpu isolation, a lot of different > > > > > requests made to given isolated cpu are batched to be run on syscall > > > > > entry/exit. It means the next syscall may take much longer than > > > > > usual. > > > > > - This may break other RT workloads such as sensor/sound/image sampling, > > > > > which could be generally ok with some of the faster syscalls for their > > > > > application, and now may perceive an error because one of those syscalls > > > > > took too long. > > > > > > > > > > While the qpw approach may cost a few extra cycles, it operates remotelly > > > > > and makes the system a bit more predictable. > > > > > > > > > > Also, when I was planning the mechanism, I remember it was meant to add > > > > > zero overhead in case of CONFIG_QPW=n, very little overhead in case of > > > > > CONFIG_QPW=y + qpw=0 (a couple of static branches, possibly with the > > > > > cost removed by the cpu branch predictor), and only add a few cycles in > > > > > case of qpw=1 + !RT. Which means we may be missing just a few adjustments > > > > > to get there. > > > > > > > > Leo, > > > > > > > > v2 of the patchset adds only 2 cycles to CONFIG_QPW=y + qpw=0. > > > > The larger overhead was due to migrate_disable, which is now (on v2) > > > > hidden inside the static branch. > > > > My bad. > > > > > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > > > Great, hiding migrate_disable under the static branch is the best scenario. > > > > > > I wonder why we spend 2 cycles on the static branches, though, should be > > > close to nothing unless the branch predictor is too busy already. Well, we > > > can always try to optimize in a different way. > > > > > > Thanks for the effort on this! > > > > Leo, > > > > migrate_enable was leaking out of the static key section > > into the common error path. > > > > With preempt_disable, as suggested by Vlastimil, those 2 cycles are > > gone: > > > > [ 61.217232] kmalloc_bench: Avg cycles per kmalloc: 164 > > [ 68.047789] kmalloc_bench: Avg cycles per kmalloc: 165 > > [ 73.266568] kmalloc_bench: Avg cycles per kmalloc: 165 > > [ 120.634168] kmalloc_bench: Avg cycles per kmalloc: 164 > > [ 127.617872] kmalloc_bench: Avg cycles per kmalloc: 164 > > [ 157.803679] kmalloc_bench: Avg cycles per kmalloc: 163 > > [root@fedvm kmalloc-perf-test]# dmesg | grep qpw > > [ 0.000000] Command line: BOOT_IMAGE=(hd0,gpt2)/vmlinuz-tip root=UUID=35cfa00b-ed70-483f-b7b2-1964e14f719e ro rootflags=subvol=root console=ttyS0,115200 qpw=0 skew_tick=1 tsc=reliable rcupdate.rcu_normal_after_boot=1 rcutree.nohz_full_patience_delay=1000 isolcpus=managed_irq,domain,14,15 amd_pstate=disable nosoftlockup crashkernel=1024M > > [ 0.118274] Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGE=(hd0,gpt2)/vmlinuz-tip root=UUID=35cfa00b-ed70-483f-b7b2-1964e14f719e ro rootflags=subvol=root console=ttyS0,115200 qpw=0 skew_tick=1 tsc=reliable rcupdate.rcu_normal_after_boot=1 rcutree.nohz_full_patience_delay=1000 isolcpus=managed_irq,domain,14,15 amd_pstate=disable nosoftlockup crashkernel=1024M > > > > Ohh, awesome then. > That means we can have a QPW-enabled kernel and zero overhead perceived if > qpw=0, right? Yes. > (Yeah, instruction cache will have to fetch extra instructions, but > hopefully that stays hidden enough.)