linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
	Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup locking changes
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:39:44 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160713203944.GC29670@mtj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160713202657.GW30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:26:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So, it's a percpu rwsem issue then.  I haven't really followed the
> > perpcpu rwsem changes closely.  Oleg, are multi-milisec delay expected
> > on down write expected with the current implementation of
> > percpu_rwsem?
> 
> There is a synchronize_sched() in there, so sorta. That thing is heavily
> geared towards readers, as is the only 'sane' choice for global locks.

It used to use the expedited variant until 001dac627ff3
("locking/percpu-rwsem: Make use of the rcu_sync infrastructure"), so
it might have been okay before then.

Skewing towards readers is fine but tens of millisecs of delays
definitely can't fit some use cases.  There's a balance between CPU
overhead and latency here.  If down writes are infrequent enough, it
doesn't make sense to aggressively trade off latency for lower
processing overhead for some use cases.

The options that I can see are

1. Somehow make percpu_rwsem's write behavior more responsive in a way
   which is acceptable all use cases.  This would be great but
   probably impossible.

2. Add a fast-writer option to percpu_rwsem so that users which care
   about write latency can opt in for higher processing overhead for
   lower latency.

3. Implement a custom per-cpu locking construct for the particular use
   case.

#3 would inherently be similar to #2 in its behavior.  If #1 isn't
possible, #2 looks like the best course of action.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-13 20:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-13  0:00 Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup locking changes John Stultz
2016-07-13  8:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-13 14:42   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 18:13     ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-07-13 18:32       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 18:21 ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-13 18:33   ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-13 20:13     ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 20:18       ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-13 20:26         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-13 20:39           ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2016-07-13 20:51             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-13 21:01               ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-13 21:03               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 21:05                 ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-13 21:18                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 21:42                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 21:46                       ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 22:17                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 22:39                           ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 23:02                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 23:04                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-14 11:35                                 ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 12:04                                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 12:08                                     ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 12:20                                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 15:07                                         ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 15:24                                           ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 16:32                                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 17:34                                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-07-14 16:54                               ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 22:25                       ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 22:01                     ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-13 22:33                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-14  6:49                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 11:20                         ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 12:11                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 15:14                             ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-14 13:18               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 14:14                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 14:58                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-07-14 16:14                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 16:37                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 17:05                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-07-14 16:23                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-14 16:45                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 17:15                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-14 16:43                 ` John Stultz
2016-07-14 16:49                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 17:02                     ` John Stultz
2016-07-14 17:13                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-07-14 17:30                         ` John Stultz
2016-07-14 17:41                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-07-14 17:51                             ` John Stultz
2016-07-14 18:09                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-07-14 18:36                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-14 19:35                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-13 20:57             ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 20:52           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 20:57             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-13 21:08               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 21:01             ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-07-13 21:03               ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 21:05               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13 20:31     ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-07-13 20:44   ` Colin Cross
2016-07-13 20:54     ` Tejun Heo

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=20160713203944.GC29670@mtj.duckdns.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=ccross@google.com \
    --cc=dimitrysh@google.com \
    --cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=romlem@google.com \
    --cc=tkjos@google.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 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).