Re: [PATCH RFC] v2 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 05:26:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:22:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > * Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Second cut of "big hammer" expedited RCU grace periods, but only 
> > > > > > > for rcu_bh.  This creates another softirq vector, so that entering 
> > > > > > > this softirq vector will have forced an rcu_bh quiescent state (as 
> > > > > > > noted by Dave Miller).  Use smp_call_function() to invoke 
> > > > > > > raise_softirq() on all CPUs in order to cause this to happen.  
> > > > > > > Track the CPUs that have passed through a quiescent state (or gone 
> > > > > > > offline) with a cpumask.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > hm, i'm still asking whether doing this would be simpler via a 
> > > > > > reschedule vector - which not only is an existing facility but also 
> > > > > > forces all RCU domains through a quiescent state - not just bh-RCU 
> > > > > > participants.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Triggering a new softirq is in no way simpler that doing an SMP 
> > > > > > cross-call - in fact softirqs are a finite resource so using some 
> > > > > > other facility would be preferred.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Am i missing something?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think the reason for this whole thread is that waiting for rcu 
> > > > > quiescent state, when called many times e.g. in multiple iptables 
> > > > > invokations, takes too longs (5 seconds to load the netfilter 
> > > > > rules at boot). [...]
> > > > 
> > > > I'm aware of the problem space.
> > > > 
> > > > I was suggesting that to trigger the quiescent state and to wait for 
> > > > it to propagate it would be enough to reuse the reschedule 
> > > > mechanism.
> > > > 
> > > > It would be relatively straightforward: first a send-reschedule then 
> > > > do a wait_task_context_switch() on rq->curr - both are existing 
> > > > primitives. (a task reference has to be taken but that's pretty much 
> > > > all)
> > > 
> > > Well, one reason I didn't take this approach was that I didn't 
> > > happen to think of it.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Also that I hadn't heard of wait_task_context_switch().
> > > 
> > > Hmmm...  Looking for wait_task_context_switch().  OK, found it.
> > > 
> > > It looks to me that this primitive won't return until the 
> > > scheduler actually decides to run something else.  We instead need 
> > > to have something that stops waiting once the CPU enters the 
> > > scheduler, hence the previous thought of making rcu_qsctr_inc() do 
> > > a bit of extra work.
> > > 
> > > This would be a way of making an expedited RCU-sched across all 
> > > RCU implementations.  As noted in the earlier email, it would not 
> > > handle RCU or RCU-bh in a -rt kernel.
> > > 
> > > > By the time wait_task_context_switch() returns from the last CPU 
> > > > we know that the quiescent state has passed.
> > > 
> > > We would want to wait for all of the CPUs in parallel, though, 
> > > wouldn't we?  Seems that we would not want to wait for the last 
> > > CPU to do another trip through the scheduler if it had already 
> > > passed through the scheduler while we were waiting on the earlier 
> > > CPUs.
> > > 
> > > So it seems like we would still want a two-pass approach -- one 
> > > pass to capture the current state, the second pass to wait for the 
> > > state to change.
> > 
> > I think waiting in parallel is still possible (first kick all tasks, 
> > then make sure all tasks have left the CPU at least once).
> > 
> > The busy-waiting in wait_task_context_switch() is indeed a 
> > problem - but perhaps that could be refactored to be a 
> > migration-thread driven wait_for_completion() + complete() 
> > cycle? It could be driven by preempt notifiers perhaps - and 
> > become zero-cost.
> 
> Hmmm...  It would need to be informed of the quiescent state even 
> if that quiescent state did not result in a preemption.
> 
> But you are right -- I do need to expedite RCU, not just RCU-bh, 
> especially given that the boot-speed guys are starting to see 
> grace periods as a measureable fraction of the boot time.  I will 
> take another pass at this.

The precise method of signalling is a detail i suspect - so by all 
means use a new softirq if that is the cleanest. I'd also agree that 
covering not just bh-rcu would definitely be a good idea.

	Ingo