From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2AFFA3745 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:05:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231280AbiJXTFO (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:05:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42790 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232236AbiJXTDh (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2022 15:03:37 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f177.google.com (mail-lj1-f177.google.com [209.85.208.177]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AD8024F02; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f177.google.com with SMTP id r22so13718110ljn.10; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:42:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=k+ZGsCv52AyvcytZAyENT4YxLktt40yzp/IYwZy2m0Y=; b=CYYBEuVKj1akkCH9zm4QH+Irr3CQvgoDGtaBwTC30YSC84ZHZdmCiXoSKqjGltzsbY FqqQPcDWn2kA3YEJrwZUr4j8Fg150XqLXEAOjXbj7EYiSy3MynKi+xZ0kFqfjkCX37Sg +mBAOsX/b/igU7z+MOLpi4VMBxlwOH4mf7KqgPnWSJWxwBQkVQk/qZQaCUnMk7nb/Wig fbqif3WJ9utp2MNb3TYvjf2jEGhTprv+9hGNOrToFH40lqaVbizYxgi8fdGKb+VThNeL DLsCY8+W17BwtqHPw30QjwYlV46013czvkqOdUNcMr/h4k8OUf3VqxLaPedryId+e/la Hw/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=k+ZGsCv52AyvcytZAyENT4YxLktt40yzp/IYwZy2m0Y=; b=SOdC9bk0GdZrUwYC8cUyb5tnwalvByjhIaZrbfFhHI9kpr8v17tYG3D/kWDPkRgtCD CgC8UDutM5srKQFs4vWv8Maf9pyJO4/ob65x9tfYV6HnBVSJLk6kqamkQmn6LaMOe6LV 5Mv0emFZvkWxMCFE0t8+/Qs9huF0XAmXEknedYTWEVG3pn+bU3YUXuDN/PH4X1GYo5iN 12KpjJ1hjqLxPNLvfOtg5ovRPGirJIPgNtxhzTLHEMnf0S9BClRvTvpP+8Is7iIwUBBX 8l60ytEgS+5U4MMxqNiwhzxIBVjiurpsteCKr5nueeBtwVlKQscY/FKbY4faszJ+Vlrn jlzw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3PzBOA0H8ol/tUT+6jx2a4lNf5N/jOC0S4kuniDscfnRHRvK/P sSoR4ErktQuPAloWQE3E3eE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7WNx9SgGodckUypwQsSaISfmtww/pkdqcbq2PjMsdErXJdZ35wd3CS75SCNTcTRGaz2ymiKg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:88c6:0:b0:275:ad8d:f3ec with SMTP id a6-20020a2e88c6000000b00275ad8df3ecmr7170698ljk.273.1666633233453; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-217-213-69-138.mobileonline.telia.com. [217.213.69.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j11-20020a056512344b00b004a100c21eaesm12029lfr.97.2022.10.24.10.40.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:40:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:40:30 +0200 To: Joel Fernandes , "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , "Paul E. McKenney" , rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, rostedt@goodmis.org Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 13/14] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush() Message-ID: References: <20221024031540.GU5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <20221024153958.GY5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <20221024164819.GA5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:08 PM Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:48:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You guys might need to agree on the definition of "good" here. Or maybe > > > > > > understand the differences in your respective platforms' definitions of > > > > > > "good". ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. Bad is when once per-millisecond infinitely :) At least in such use > > > > > workload a can detect a power delta and power gain. Anyway, below is a new > > > > > trace where i do not use "flush" variant for the kvfree_rcu(): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Home screen swipe: > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1792.767750: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1003 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 1792.771717: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=934 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/3-40 [001] d..1 1794.811816: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1508 bl=11 > > > > > rcuop/1-26 [003] d..1 1797.116382: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2127 bl=16 > > > > > rcuop/4-48 [001] d..1 1797.124422: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=95 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [002] d..1 1797.124731: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=143 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [005] d..1 1798.911719: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=132 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 1803.003966: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3797 bl=29 > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1803.004707: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2969 bl=23 > > > > > > 2. App launches: > > > > > rcuop/4-48 [005] d..1 1831.087612: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6141 bl=47 > > > > > rcuop/7-69 [007] d..1 1831.095578: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5464 bl=42 > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1832.703571: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8461 bl=66 > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [004] d..1 1833.731603: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2548 bl=19 > > > > > rcuop/1-26 [006] d..1 1833.743691: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2567 bl=20 > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [006] d..1 1833.744005: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2359 bl=18 > > > > > rcuop/3-40 [006] d..1 1833.744286: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3681 bl=28 > > > > > rcuop/4-48 [002] d..1 1838.079777: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10444 bl=81 > > > > > rcuop/7-69 [001] d..1 1838.080375: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=12572 bl=98 > > > > > <...>-62 [002] d..1 1838.080646: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=14135 bl=110 > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [000] d..1 1838.087722: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10839 bl=84 > > > > > <...>-62 [003] d..1 1839.227022: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1834 bl=14 > > > > > <...>-26 [001] d..1 1839.963315: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5769 bl=45 > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [001] d..1 1839.966485: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3789 bl=29 > > > > > <...>-40 [001] d..1 1839.966596: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6425 bl=50 > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1840.541272: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=825 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1840.547724: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=44 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/2-33 [005] d..1 1841.075759: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=516 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [002] d..1 1841.695716: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6312 bl=49 > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1841.709714: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=39 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1843.112442: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=16007 bl=125 > > > > > rcuop/5-55 [004] d..1 1843.115444: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=7901 bl=61 > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [001] dn.1 1843.123983: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8427 bl=65 > > > > > rcuop/6-62 [006] d..1 1843.412383: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=981 bl=10 > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1844.659812: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1851 bl=14 > > > > > rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 1844.667790: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=135 bl=10 > > Definitely better, but I'd still ask why not just rely on the lazy > batching that we now have, since it is a memory pressure related > usecase. Or another approach could be, for CONFIG_RCU_LAZY, don't > disturb the lazy-RCU batching by queuing these "free memory" CBs; and > instead keep your improved kvfree_rcu() batching only for > !CONFIG_RCU_LAZY. > 1. Double-batching? The kvfree_rcu() interface itself keeps track of when to reclaim: a) when a page is full; b) when i high storm of freeing over rcu; c) when a low memory condition. such control stays inside the kvfree_rcu(). Converting it to lazy variant: a) lose the control, what will become as a problem; b) nothing is improved. 2. Converting the queue_rcu_work() to lazy variant breaks a humanity interpretation when a queued work is supposed to be run. People do not expect seconds when they queue the work. Same as in the kvfree_rcu() we do not expect it we even used a high_prio queue in the beginning. There are ~10 users who queue the work and they did not expect it to be run in 10 seconds when they wrote the code. 3. With the "rcu/kvfree: Update KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES interval" there is no sense in doing it. Same data in active and idle use cases. -- Uladzislau Rezki