From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 13/14] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush()
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:49:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y1ZtyjxKCcV0Hfjn@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221024031540.GU5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 08:36:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:51 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > call_rcu() changes to save power will slow down RCU workqueue items
> > > queued via queue_rcu_work(). This may not be an issue, however we cannot
> > > assume that workqueue users are OK with long delays. Use
> > > call_rcu_flush() API instead which reverts to the old behavio
> >
> > On ChromeOS, I can see that queue_rcu_work() is pretty noisy and the
> > batching is much better if we can just keep it as call_rcu() instead
> > of call_rcu_flush().
> >
> > Is there really any reason to keep it as call_rcu_flush() ? If I
> > recall, the real reason Vlad's system was slowing down was because of
> > scsi and the queue_rcu_work() conversion was really a red herring.
>
<snip>
*** drivers/acpi/osl.c:
acpi_os_drop_map_ref[401] queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &map->track.rwork);
*** drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c:
virtual_context_destroy[3653] queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &ve->rcu);
*** fs/aio.c:
free_ioctx_reqs[632] queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &ctx->free_rwork);
*** fs/fs-writeback.c:
inode_switch_wbs[604] queue_rcu_work(isw_wq, &isw->work);
cleanup_offline_cgwb[676] queue_rcu_work(isw_wq, &isw->work);
*** include/linux/workqueue.h:
__printf[446] extern bool queue_rcu_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq, struct rcu_work *rwork);
*** kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c:
css_release_work_fn[5253] queue_rcu_work(cgroup_destroy_wq, &css->destroy_rwork);
css_create[5384] queue_rcu_work(cgroup_destroy_wq, &css->destroy_rwork);
*** kernel/rcu/tree.c:
kfree_rcu_monitor[3192] queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &krwp->rcu_work);
*** net/core/skmsg.c:
sk_psock_drop[852] queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &psock->rwork);
*** net/sched/act_ct.c:
tcf_ct_flow_table_put[355] queue_rcu_work(act_ct_wq, &ct_ft->rwork);
*** net/sched/cls_api.c:
tcf_queue_work[225] return queue_rcu_work(tc_filter_wq, rwork);
<snip>
There are 9 users of the queue_rcu_work() functions. I think there can be
a side effect if we keep it as lazy variant. Please note that i have not
checked all those users.
> There are less than 20 invocations of queue_rcu_work(), so it should
> be possible look through each. The low-risk approach is of course to
> have queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush().
>
> The next approach might be to have a Kconfig option and/or kernel
> boot parameter that allowed a per-system choice.
>
> But it would not hurt to double-check on Android.
>
I did not see such noise but i will come back some data on 5.10 kernel
today.
>
> > Vlad, any thoughts?
> >
At least for the kvfree_rcu() i would like to keep the sync variant, because
we have the below patch that improves bathing:
<snip>
commit 51824b780b719c53113dc39e027fbf670dc66028
Author: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Jun 30 18:33:35 2022 +0200
rcu/kvfree: Update KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES interval
Currently the monitor work is scheduled with a fixed interval of HZ/20,
which is roughly 50 milliseconds. The drawback of this approach is
low utilization of the 512 page slots in scenarios with infrequence
kvfree_rcu() calls. For example on an Android system:
<snip>
Apparently i see it in the "dev" branch only.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-24 10:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-19 22:51 [PATCH rcu 0/14] Lazy call_rcu() updates for v6.2 Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 01/14] rcu: Simplify rcu_init_nohz() cpumask handling Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 02/14] rcu: Fix late wakeup when flush of bypass cblist happens Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 03/14] rcu: Fix missing nocb gp wake on rcu_barrier() Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 04/14] rcu: Make call_rcu() lazy to save power Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 05/14] rcu: Refactor code a bit in rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass() Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 06/14] rcu: Shrinker for lazy rcu Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 07/14] rcuscale: Add laziness and kfree tests Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 08/14] percpu-refcount: Use call_rcu_flush() for atomic switch Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 09/14] rcu/sync: Use call_rcu_flush() instead of call_rcu Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 10/14] rcu/rcuscale: Use call_rcu_flush() for async reader test Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 11/14] rcu/rcutorture: Use call_rcu_flush() where needed Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 12/14] scsi/scsi_error: Use call_rcu_flush() instead of call_rcu() Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 13/14] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush() Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-24 0:36 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-24 3:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-24 10:49 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2022-10-24 12:23 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-24 14:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-24 15:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-24 16:25 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-24 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-24 16:55 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-24 17:08 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-24 17:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-24 17:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-24 20:12 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-24 20:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-25 10:48 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-25 15:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-26 20:35 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-24 20:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-10-24 20:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-24 17:40 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-24 20:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-25 10:47 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-28 21:23 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-28 21:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-31 13:21 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-31 13:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-31 18:15 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-01 4:49 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-10-24 16:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-19 22:51 ` [PATCH rcu 14/14] rxrpc: Use call_rcu_flush() instead of call_rcu() 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=Y1ZtyjxKCcV0Hfjn@pc636 \
--to=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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).