From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395C9C43381 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B6D2082F for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:08:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729182AbfCYPII (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:08:08 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:49654 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726185AbfCYPII (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:08:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2PF0mM3094295 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:08:07 -0400 Received: from e15.ny.us.ibm.com (e15.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.205]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rf0ss2bby-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:08:06 -0400 Received: from localhost by e15.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:08:05 -0000 Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.27) by e15.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.202) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:08:00 -0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x2PF7x2d22347778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:07:59 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6396BB2065; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:07:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F75B205F; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:07:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.188]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:07:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 431C516C42B1; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:08:00 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , tglx@linutronix.de, Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rcu: Allow to eliminate softirq processing from rcutree Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190320173001.GM4102@linux.ibm.com> <20190320175952.yh6yfy64vaiurszw@linutronix.de> <20190320181210.GO4102@linux.ibm.com> <20190320181435.x3qyutwqllmq5zbk@linutronix.de> <20190320211333.eq7pwxnte7la67ph@linutronix.de> <20190322234819.GA99360@google.com> <20190323002519.GV4102@linux.ibm.com> <20190323161002.GA17112@linux.ibm.com> <20190324234211.GA28064@linux.ibm.com> <20190325134129.GB182885@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190325134129.GB182885@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19032515-0068-0000-0000-000003AACA6E X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010811; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000282; SDB=6.01179495; UDB=6.00617187; IPR=6.00960206; MB=3.00026147; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-03-25 15:08:03 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19032515-0069-0000-0000-000047EE7431 Message-Id: <20190325150800.GB4102@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-03-25_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903250112 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 09:41:29AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 04:42:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:10:02AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 05:25:19PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:48:19PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > Running RCU out of softirq is a problem for some workloads that would > > > > > > like to manage RCU core processing independently of other softirq > > > > > > work, for example, setting kthread priority. This commit therefore > > > > > > introduces the `rcunosoftirq' option which moves the RCU core work > > > > > > from softirq to a per-CPU/per-flavor SCHED_OTHER kthread named rcuc. > > > > > > The SCHED_OTHER approach avoids the scalability problems that appeared > > > > > > with the earlier attempt to move RCU core processing to from softirq > > > > > > to kthreads. That said, kernels built with RCU_BOOST=y will run the > > > > > > rcuc kthreads at the RCU-boosting priority. > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > > index 0f31b79eb6761..05a1e42fdaf10 100644 > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,12 @@ > > > > > > #include > > > > > > #include > > > > > > #include > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > +#include "../time/tick-internal.h" > > > > > > > > > > > > #include "tree.h" > > > > > > #include "rcu.h" > > > > > > @@ -92,6 +98,9 @@ struct rcu_state rcu_state = { > > > > > > /* Dump rcu_node combining tree at boot to verify correct setup. */ > > > > > > static bool dump_tree; > > > > > > module_param(dump_tree, bool, 0444); > > > > > > +/* Move RCU_SOFTIRQ to rcuc kthreads. */ > > > > > > +static bool use_softirq = 1; > > > > > > +module_param(use_softirq, bool, 0444); > > > > > > /* Control rcu_node-tree auto-balancing at boot time. */ > > > > > > static bool rcu_fanout_exact; > > > > > > module_param(rcu_fanout_exact, bool, 0444); > > > > > > @@ -2253,7 +2262,7 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_force_quiescent_state); > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Perform RCU core processing work for the current CPU. */ > > > > > > -static __latent_entropy void rcu_core(struct softirq_action *unused) > > > > > > +static __latent_entropy void rcu_core(void) > > > > > > { > > > > > > unsigned long flags; > > > > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = raw_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > > > > @@ -2295,6 +2304,34 @@ static __latent_entropy void rcu_core(struct softirq_action *unused) > > > > > > trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("End RCU core")); > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > +static void rcu_core_si(struct softirq_action *h) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + rcu_core(); > > > > > > +} > > > > > > + > > > > > > +static void rcu_wake_cond(struct task_struct *t, int status) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * If the thread is yielding, only wake it when this > > > > > > + * is invoked from idle > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + if (t && (status != RCU_KTHREAD_YIELDING || is_idle_task(current))) > > > > > > + wake_up_process(t); > > > > > > +} > > > > > > + > > > > > > +static void invoke_rcu_core_kthread(void) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + struct task_struct *t; > > > > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > > > > + __this_cpu_write(rcu_data.rcu_cpu_has_work, 1); > > > > > > + t = __this_cpu_read(rcu_data.rcu_cpu_kthread_task); > > > > > > + if (t != NULL && t != current) > > > > > > + rcu_wake_cond(t, __this_cpu_read(rcu_data.rcu_cpu_kthread_status)); > > > > > > + local_irq_restore(flags); > > > > > > +} > > > > > > + > > > > > > /* > > > > > > * Schedule RCU callback invocation. If the running implementation of RCU > > > > > > * does not support RCU priority boosting, just do a direct call, otherwise > > > > > > @@ -2306,19 +2343,95 @@ static void invoke_rcu_callbacks(struct rcu_data *rdp) > > > > > > { > > > > > > if (unlikely(!READ_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_fully_active))) > > > > > > return; > > > > > > - if (likely(!rcu_state.boost)) { > > > > > > - rcu_do_batch(rdp); > > > > > > - return; > > > > > > - } > > > > > > - invoke_rcu_callbacks_kthread(); > > > > > > + if (rcu_state.boost || !use_softirq) > > > > > > + invoke_rcu_core_kthread(); > > > > > > + rcu_do_batch(rdp); > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't there be an else before the rcu_do_batch? If we are waking up the > > > > > rcuc thread, then that will do the rcu_do_batch when it runs right? > > > > > > > > > > Something like: > > > > > if (rcu_state.boost || !use_softirq) > > > > > invoke_rcu_core_kthread(); > > > > > else > > > > > rcu_do_batch(rdp); > > > > > > > > > > Previous code similarly had a return; also. > > > > > > > > I believe that you are correct, so I will give it a shot. Good eyes! > > > > > > Yet rcutorture disagrees. Actually, if we are using rcuc kthreads, this > > > is only ever invoked from within tha thread, so the only check we need is > > > for the scheduler being operational. I am therefore trying this one out. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > And rcutorture likes this one, though at this point this function should > > be pulled into its sole callsite. ;-) > > Great, I'm glad the testing is going well. Which reminds me... I have been assuming that Frederic Weisbecker's split-softirq patches were stalled for the time being. http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190228171242.32144-1-frederic@kernel.org If those were to show up soonish, perhaps that would allow per-softirq control of priority. My thought is not to wait, but I figured I should mention it. > By the way I enlightened that jitter.sh script about CPU offline issues as > well (sent patch last week). Let me know if you agree with it. I just sent a reply. Still trying to remember why I excluded CPU 0. ;-) Perhaps because of issues with single-CPU rcutorture runs? Thanx, Paul