From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rushikesh.s.kadam@intel.com, urezki@gmail.com,
neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com, paulmck@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
vineeth@bitbyteword.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/18] rcu: Introduce call_rcu_lazy() API implementation
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 17:17:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220906151757.GA183806@lothringen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yxa5Ch574cRZxRdo@google.com>
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 03:05:46AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> index 4dc86274b3e8..b201606f7c4f 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> @@ -256,6 +256,31 @@ static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool force)
> return __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, force, flags);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES decides the maximum amount of time that
> + * can elapse before lazy callbacks are flushed. Lazy callbacks
> + * could be flushed much earlier for a number of other reasons
> + * however, LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES will ensure no lazy callbacks are
> + * left unsubmitted to RCU after those many jiffies.
> + */
> +#define LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES (10 * HZ)
> +unsigned long jiffies_till_flush = LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES;
Still not static.
> @@ -293,12 +322,16 @@ static void wake_nocb_gp_defer(struct rcu_data *rdp, int waketype,
> * proves to be initially empty, just return false because the no-CB GP
> * kthread may need to be awakened in this case.
> *
> + * Return true if there was something to be flushed and it succeeded, otherwise
> + * false.
> + *
This kind of contradict the comment that follows. Not sure you need to add
that line because the existing comment seem to cover it.
> * Note that this function always returns true if rhp is NULL.
> */
> static bool rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> - unsigned long j)
> + unsigned long j, unsigned long flush_flags)
> {
> struct rcu_cblist rcl;
> + bool lazy = flush_flags & FLUSH_BP_LAZY;
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp));
> rcu_lockdep_assert_cblist_protected(rdp);
> @@ -326,13 +372,20 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> * Note that this function always returns true if rhp is NULL.
> */
> static bool rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> - unsigned long j)
> + unsigned long j, unsigned long flush_flags)
> {
> + bool ret;
> +
> if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
> return true;
> rcu_lockdep_assert_cblist_protected(rdp);
> rcu_nocb_bypass_lock(rdp);
> - return rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(rdp, rhp, j);
> + ret = rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(rdp, rhp, j, flush_flags);
> +
> + if (flush_flags & FLUSH_BP_WAKE)
> + wake_nocb_gp(rdp, true);
Why the true above?
Also should we check if the wake up is really necessary (otherwise it means we
force a wake up for all rdp's from rcu_barrier())?
was_alldone = rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist);
ret = rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(rdp, rhp, j, flush_flags);
if (was_alldone && rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist))
wake_nocb_gp(rdp, false);
> @@ -461,16 +521,29 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_try_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> // We need to use the bypass.
> rcu_nocb_wait_contended(rdp);
> rcu_nocb_bypass_lock(rdp);
> +
> ncbs = rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
> rcu_segcblist_inc_len(&rdp->cblist); /* Must precede enqueue. */
> rcu_cblist_enqueue(&rdp->nocb_bypass, rhp);
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_LAZY) && lazy)
> + WRITE_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len, rdp->lazy_len + 1);
> +
> if (!ncbs) {
> WRITE_ONCE(rdp->nocb_bypass_first, j);
> trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu, TPS("FirstBQ"));
> }
> +
> rcu_nocb_bypass_unlock(rdp);
> smp_mb(); /* Order enqueue before wake. */
> - if (ncbs) {
> +
> + // We had CBs in the bypass list before. There is nothing else to do if:
> + // There were only non-lazy CBs before, in this case, the bypass timer
Kind of misleading. I would replace "There were only non-lazy CBs before" with
"There was at least one non-lazy CBs before".
> + // or GP-thread will handle the CBs including any new lazy ones.
> + // Or, the new CB is lazy and the old bypass-CBs were also lazy. In this
> + // case the old lazy timer would have been setup. When that expires,
> + // the new lazy one will be handled.
> + if (ncbs && (!bypass_is_lazy || lazy)) {
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> } else {
> // No-CBs GP kthread might be indefinitely asleep, if so, wake.
> @@ -479,6 +552,10 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_try_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
> TPS("FirstBQwake"));
> __call_rcu_nocb_wake(rdp, true, flags);
> + } else if (bypass_is_lazy && !lazy) {
> + trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
> + TPS("FirstBQwakeLazy2Non"));
> + __call_rcu_nocb_wake(rdp, true, flags);
Not sure we need this chunk. Since there are pending callbacks anyway,
nocb_gp_wait() should be handling them and it will set the appropriate
timer on the next loop.
Thanks.
> } else {
> trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
> TPS("FirstBQnoWake"));
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-06 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-01 22:17 [PATCH v5 00/18] Implement call_rcu_lazy() and miscellaneous fixes Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 01/18] mm/slub: perform free consistency checks before call_rcu Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 02/18] mm/sl[au]b: rearrange struct slab fields to allow larger rcu_head Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-02 9:26 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-02 9:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-02 15:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-03 13:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 03/18] rcu/tree: Use READ_ONCE() for lockless read of rnp->qsmask Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-06 22:26 ` Boqun Feng
2022-09-06 22:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 04/18] rcu: Fix late wakeup when flush of bypass cblist happens Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-02 11:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-02 23:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-03 15:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-04 21:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-03 14:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-03 14:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 3:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 9:48 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-07 2:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 05/18] rcu: Move trace_rcu_callback() before bypassing Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 06/18] rcu: Introduce call_rcu_lazy() API implementation Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-02 15:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-02 23:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-05 12:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-05 20:18 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-05 20:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 8:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-06 16:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 17:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-03 22:00 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-04 21:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-05 20:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 3:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 15:17 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2022-09-06 16:15 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 16:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 16:38 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 16:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 19:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-07 2:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-07 9:56 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-07 10:03 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-07 14:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-07 0:06 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-07 9:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-07 13:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-07 15:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-09-07 15:39 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-21 23:52 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-06 18:16 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-06 18:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-07 8:52 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-09-07 15:23 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-03 14:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-03 14:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 07/18] rcu: shrinker for lazy rcu Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 08/18] rcu: Add per-CB tracing for queuing, flush and invocation Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-02 16:48 ` kernel test robot
2022-09-03 12:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-09-03 14:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-09-02 19:01 ` kernel test robot
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 09/18] rcuscale: Add laziness and kfree tests Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 10/18] rcutorture: Add test code for call_rcu_lazy() Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 11/18] fs: Move call_rcu() to call_rcu_lazy() in some paths Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 12/18] cred: Move call_rcu() to call_rcu_lazy() Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 13/18] security: " Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 14/18] net/core: " Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 15/18] kernel: Move various core kernel usages " Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 16/18] lib: Move call_rcu() " Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 17/18] i915: " Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-01 22:17 ` [PATCH v5 18/18] fork: Move thread_stack_free_rcu() " Joel Fernandes (Google)
2022-09-03 15:22 ` [PATCH v5 00/18] Implement call_rcu_lazy() and miscellaneous fixes 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=20220906151757.GA183806@lothringen \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rushikesh.s.kadam@intel.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.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).