From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: need_heavy_qs flag for PREEMPT=y kernels
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 21:24:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190812012431.GC128944@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190811233024.GZ28441@linux.ibm.com>
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 04:30:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 05:25:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 02:16:46PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 02:34:08PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 2:08 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Paul, everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I noticed on reading code that the need_heavy_qs check and
> > > > > rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() is only called for !PREEMPT kernels. Don't we
> > > > > need to call this for PREEMPT kernels for the benefit of nohz_full CPUs?
> > > > >
> > > > > Consider the following events:
> > > > > 1. Kernel is PREEMPT=y configuration.
> > > > > 2. CPU 2 is a nohz_full CPU running only a single task and the tick is off.
> > > > > 3. CPU 2 is running only in kernel mode and does not enter user mode or idle.
> > > > > 4. Grace period thread running on CPU 3 enter the fqs loop.
> > > > > 5. Enough time passes and it sets the need_heavy_qs for CPU2.
> > > > > 6. CPU 2 is still in kernel mode but does cond_resched().
> > > > > 7. cond_resched() does not call rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() because PREEMPT=y.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is 7. not calling rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() a lost opportunity for the FQS
> > > > > loop to detect that the CPU has crossed a quiescent point?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this done so that cond_resched() is fast for PREEMPT=y kernels?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so I take it this bit of code in rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(), with
> > > > the accompanying comments, takes care of the scenario I describe?
> > > > Another way could be just call rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() during
> > > > cond_resched() for nohz_full CPUs? Is that pricey?
> > > > /*
> > > > * NO_HZ_FULL CPUs can run in-kernel without rcu_sched_clock_irq!
> > > > * The above code handles this, but only for straight cond_resched().
> > > > * And some in-kernel loops check need_resched() before calling
> > > > * cond_resched(), which defeats the above code for CPUs that are
> > > > * running in-kernel with scheduling-clock interrupts disabled.
> > > > * So hit them over the head with the resched_cpu() hammer!
> > > > */
> > > > if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(rdp->cpu) &&
> > > > time_after(jiffies,
> > > > READ_ONCE(rdp->last_fqs_resched) + jtsq * 3)) {
> > > > resched_cpu(rdp->cpu);
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(rdp->last_fqs_resched, jiffies);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Yes, for NO_HZ_FULL=y&&PREEMPT=y kernels.
> >
> > Actually, I was only referring to the case of NO_HZ_FULL=y being the
> > troublesome one (i.e. rcu_need_heavy_qs flag would have no effect).
> >
> > For NO_HZ_FULL=n, I have full confidence the scheduler tick will notice
> > rcu_urgent_qs and do a reschedule. The ensuing softirq then does the needful
> > to help end the grace period.
>
> Whew!
>
> That confidence was not at all apparent in your initial email.
Sorry, I should improve the quality of my emails for sure.
> > > Your thought of including rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() would function
> > > correctly, but would cause performance issues. Even adding additional
> > > compares and branches in that hot codepath is visible to 0day test robot!
> > > So adding a read-modify-write atomic operation to that code path would
> > > get attention of the wrong kind. ;-)
> >
> > But wouldn't these performance issues also be visible with
> > NO_HZ_FULL=y && PREEMPT=n?
>
> In PREEMPT=n, cond_resched() already has a check, and with quite a bit
> of care it is possible to introduce another.
Actually, may be I did not express properly. I mean the performance issues
that 0day found (that you mentioned above) with invoking
rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() from hotpaths should also have been found with
PREEMPT=n. However, sounds like it has found these issues only when invoking
rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() with PREEMPT=y - which as you said is the reason
rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() is not invoked in PREEMPT=y. So I was asking,
why are these same performance issues not seen with PREEMPT=n? And if they
are seen, why do we invoke rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle() in mainline for
PREEMPT=n kernels?
> > Why is PREEMPT=n made an exception?
>
> The exception is actually CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y && CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
> In that case, we can rely on neither the scheduling-clock interrupt
> nor on cond_resched(). In the other three cases, we have one or both.
Agreed, that's what I found weird. PREEMPT=y with NOHZ_FULL=y has no support
to rely on. While PREEMPT=n with NOHZ_FULL=y does. So my question was about
the rationale for why there is this difference. Either we invoke
rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle for both PREEMPT options, or we don't invoke it
for either. Why invoke it for one but not the other?
> Next question: Why does rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() check only for
> tick_nohz_full_cpu() and not also IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT)? After
> all, a nohz_full CPU in a !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel should be able to
> rely on cond_resched(), right?
>
> Should this change? Why or why not?
Let me think more about this :) I have an answer in mind but I will think a
bit more about it and responsd :)
thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-12 1:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-11 18:08 need_heavy_qs flag for PREEMPT=y kernels Joel Fernandes
2019-08-11 18:34 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-11 21:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-11 21:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-11 23:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-12 1:24 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2019-08-12 1:40 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-12 3:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-11 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-12 3:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-12 3:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-12 21:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-12 23:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-13 1:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-13 1:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-13 2:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-13 2:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-13 2:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 17:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 20:04 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 20:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 21:22 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 21:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 21:34 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 21:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 21:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-16 0:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 12:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-19 12:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-19 16:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-19 22:31 ` 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=20190812012431.GC128944@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).