From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rcu_process_callbacks irqsoff latency caused by taking spinlock with irqs disabled
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:13:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180405001358.GK3948@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180405093414.2273203e@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:34:14AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Just looking at latencies, and RCU showed up as one of the maximums.
> This is a 2 socket system with (176 CPU threads). Just doing a
> `make -j 352` kernel build. Got a max latency of 3ms. I don't think
> that's anything to worry about really, but I wanted to check the
> cause.
Well, that 3 milliseconds would cause serious problems for some workloads...
> # tracer: irqsoff
> #
> # irqsoff latency trace v1.1.5 on 4.16.0-01530-g43d1859f0994
> # --------------------------------------------------------------------
> # latency: 3055 us, #19/19, CPU#135 | (M:server VP:0, KP:0, SP:0 HP:0 #P:176)
> # -----------------
> # | task: cc1-58689 (uid:1003 nice:0 policy:0 rt_prio:0)
> # -----------------
> # => started at: rcu_process_callbacks
> # => ended at: _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> #
> #
> # _------=> CPU#
> # / _-----=> irqs-off
> # | / _----=> need-resched
> # || / _---=> hardirq/softirq
> # ||| / _--=> preempt-depth
> # |||| / delay
> # cmd pid ||||| time | caller
> # \ / ||||| \ | /
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 0us : rcu_process_callbacks
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 1us : cpu_needs_another_gp <-rcu_process_callbacks
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 2us : rcu_segcblist_future_gp_needed <-cpu_needs_another_gp
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3us#: _raw_spin_lock <-rcu_process_callbacks
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3047us : rcu_start_gp <-rcu_process_callbacks
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3048us : rcu_advance_cbs <-rcu_start_gp
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3049us : rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs <-rcu_advance_cbs
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3049us : rcu_segcblist_advance <-rcu_advance_cbs
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3050us : rcu_accelerate_cbs <-rcu_start_gp
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3050us : rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3051us : rcu_segcblist_accelerate <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3052us : trace_rcu_future_gp.isra.0 <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3052us : trace_rcu_future_gp.isra.0 <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3053us : rcu_start_gp_advanced.isra.35 <-rcu_start_gp
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3053us : cpu_needs_another_gp <-rcu_start_gp_advanced.isra.35
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3054us : _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore <-rcu_process_callbacks
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3055us : _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3056us : trace_hardirqs_on <-_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> <...>-58689 135d.s. 3061us : <stack trace>
>
> So it's taking a contende lock with interrupts disabled:
>
> static void
> __rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> bool needwake;
> struct rcu_data *rdp = raw_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdp->beenonline);
>
> /* Update RCU state based on any recent quiescent states. */
> rcu_check_quiescent_state(rsp, rdp);
>
> /* Does this CPU require a not-yet-started grace period? */
> local_irq_save(flags);
> if (cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp)) {
> raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rcu_get_root(rsp)); /* irqs disabled. */
> needwake = rcu_start_gp(rsp);
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rcu_get_root(rsp), flags);
> if (needwake)
> rcu_gp_kthread_wake(rsp);
> } else {
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
>
> Because irqs are disabled before taking the lock, we can't spin with
> interrupts enabled.
>
> cpu_needs_another_gp needs interrupts off to prevent races with normal
> callback registry, but that doesn't seem to be preventing any wider
> races in this code, because we immediately re-enable interrupts anyway
> if no gp is needed. So an interrupt can come in right after that and
> queue something up.
>
> So then the question is whether it's safe-albeit-racy to call with
> interrupts ensabled? Would be nice to move it to a spin_lock_irqsave.
If I recall correctly, the issue is that an unsynchronized (due to
interrupts being enabled) check in the "if" statement can cause extra
unneeded grace periods.
I am guessing that the long latency is caused by lots of CPUs suddenly
needing a new grace period at about the same time. If so, this is
a bottleneck that I have been expecting for some time, and one that
I would resolve by introducing funnel locking, sort of like SRCU and
expedited grace periods already use.
Or am I confused about the source of the contention?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-05 0:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-04 23:34 rcu_process_callbacks irqsoff latency caused by taking spinlock with irqs disabled Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-05 0:13 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-04-05 0:45 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-05 15:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-06 21:40 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-08 21:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-17 15:43 ` 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=20180405001358.GK3948@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@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 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).