All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	rushikesh.s.kadam@intel.com, urezki@gmail.com,
	neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] rcu: Make call_rcu() lazy to save power
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:33:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220926173357.GN4196@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YzG/hoePbBumpaBV@google.com>

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 03:04:38PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:00:45AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 09:00:39PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > On Sep 24, 2022, at 7:28 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Frederic, thanks for the response, replies
> > > > below courtesy fruit company’s device:
> > > > 
> > > >>> On Sep 24, 2022, at 6:46 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 10:01:01PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > >>> @@ -3902,7 +3939,11 @@ static void rcu_barrier_entrain(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > >>>   rdp->barrier_head.func = rcu_barrier_callback;
> > > >>>   debug_rcu_head_queue(&rdp->barrier_head);
> > > >>>   rcu_nocb_lock(rdp);
> > > >>> -    WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(rdp, NULL, jiffies));
> > > >>> +    /*
> > > >>> +     * Flush the bypass list, but also wake up the GP thread as otherwise
> > > >>> +     * bypass/lazy CBs maynot be noticed, and can cause real long delays!
> > > >>> +     */
> > > >>> +    WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(rdp, NULL, jiffies, FLUSH_BP_WAKE));
> > > >> 
> > > >> This fixes an issue that goes beyond lazy implementation. It should be done
> > > >> in a separate patch, handling rcu_segcblist_entrain() as well, with "Fixes: " tag.
> > > > 
> > > > I wanted to do that, however on discussion with
> > > > Paul I thought of making this optimization only for
> > > > all lazy bypass CBs. That makes it directly related
> > > > this patch since the laziness notion is first
> > > > introduced here. On the other hand I could make
> > > > this change in a later patch since we are not
> > > > super bisectable anyway courtesy of the last
> > > > patch (which is not really an issue if the CONFIG
> > > > is kept off during someone’s bisection.
> > > 
> > > Or are we saying it’s worth doing the wake up for rcu barrier even for
> > > regular bypass CB? That’d save 2 jiffies on rcu barrier. If we agree it’s
> > > needed, then yes splitting the patch makes sense.
> > > 
> > > Please let me know your opinions, thanks,
> > > 
> > >  - Joel
> > 
> > Sure, I mean since we are fixing the buggy rcu_barrier_entrain() anyway, let's
> > just fix bypass as well. Such as in the following (untested):
> 
> Got it. This sounds good to me, and will simplify the code a bit more for sure.
> 
> I guess a question for Paul - are you Ok with rcu_barrier() causing wake ups
> if the bypass list has any non-lazy CBs as well? That should be OK, IMO.

In theory, I am OK with it.  In practice, you are the guys with the
hardware that can measure power consumption, not me!  ;-)

> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index b39e97175a9e..a0df964abb0e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3834,6 +3834,8 @@ static void rcu_barrier_entrain(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long gseq = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.barrier_sequence);
> >  	unsigned long lseq = READ_ONCE(rdp->barrier_seq_snap);
> > +	bool wake_nocb = false;
> > +	bool was_alldone = false;
> >  
> >  	lockdep_assert_held(&rcu_state.barrier_lock);
> >  	if (rcu_seq_state(lseq) || !rcu_seq_state(gseq) || rcu_seq_ctr(lseq) != rcu_seq_ctr(gseq))
> > @@ -3842,6 +3844,8 @@ static void rcu_barrier_entrain(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  	rdp->barrier_head.func = rcu_barrier_callback;
> >  	debug_rcu_head_queue(&rdp->barrier_head);
> >  	rcu_nocb_lock(rdp);
> > +	if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp) && !rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist))
> > +		was_alldone = true;
> >  	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(rdp, NULL, jiffies));
> >  	if (rcu_segcblist_entrain(&rdp->cblist, &rdp->barrier_head)) {
> >  		atomic_inc(&rcu_state.barrier_cpu_count);
> > @@ -3849,7 +3853,12 @@ static void rcu_barrier_entrain(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  		debug_rcu_head_unqueue(&rdp->barrier_head);
> >  		rcu_barrier_trace(TPS("IRQNQ"), -1, rcu_state.barrier_sequence);
> >  	}
> > +	if (was_alldone && rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist))
> > +		wake_nocb = true;
> >  	rcu_nocb_unlock(rdp);
> > +	if (wake_nocb)
> > +		wake_nocb_gp(rdp, false);
> > +
> 
> Thanks for the code snippet, I like how you are checking if the bypass list
> is empty, without actually checking it ;-)

That certainly is consistent with the RCU philosophy.  :-)

							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-26 17:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-22 22:01 [PATCH v6 0/4] rcu: call_rcu() power improvements Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-22 22:01 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] rcu: Make call_rcu() lazy to save power Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-23 21:44   ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-24 16:20     ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-24 21:11       ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-24 22:56         ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-25 17:31         ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 17:42           ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-26 21:07             ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 22:37               ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-26 23:33                 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 23:53                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-03 19:33                     ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-03 19:49                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-24 22:46   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-24 23:28     ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-25  1:00       ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-25 22:00         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-26 15:04           ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 17:33             ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2022-09-26 23:37               ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-25 22:09       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-26 17:45         ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-25  8:57   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-25 17:46     ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 17:48       ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-26 19:32         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-26 21:02           ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 22:32             ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-26 23:47               ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 23:59                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-27  1:49                   ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27  3:22                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-27 13:05                       ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27 14:14                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-27 14:22                           ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27 14:30                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-27 15:25                               ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27 15:59                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
     [not found]                   ` <CAEXW_YRpAjvmBPzRA-hRQpuaDuZUzfndLb3q+e3BUyWprg5wkQ@mail.gmail.com>
2022-09-27  3:21                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-26 22:27           ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-26 19:39       ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-26 20:54         ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 22:35           ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-26 23:44             ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-26 23:57               ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-27  1:16                 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27  3:20                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-27 14:08           ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-27 14:30             ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27 14:59               ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-27 15:13                 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-27 21:31                   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-27 22:05                     ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27 22:29                       ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-30 16:11                         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-04 11:35                           ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-04 18:06                             ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-27 15:14                 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-22 22:01 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] rcu: shrinker for lazy rcu Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-22 22:01 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] rcuscale: Add laziness and kfree tests Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-22 22:01 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] percpu-refcount: Use call_rcu_flush() for atomic switch Joel Fernandes (Google)

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=20220926173357.GN4196@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1 \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=rushikesh.s.kadam@intel.com \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.