rcu.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	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()
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:08:17 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YSRkNDhJu591S3GGQyJnCxCDJy6u_+-1Q_8z5_cQHb1Qg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y1bODlfqVMQivzJU@pc636>

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:40 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:08 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> 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():
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > 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.

AFAICS, the only thing being changed is when you are giving memory
back to the system. So you will be holding on to memory a bit longer.
And there's shrinkers that are already flushing those. I don't think
the users of kvfree_rcu() want to free memory instantly. If there is
such usecase, please share it.

> 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.

Which people? ;)

> 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.

That's a bit of a misinterpretation of what I'm saying. A variant
queue_rcu_work_flush() can be added for those users (such as ones that
are not freeing memory).

Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-24 21:56 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
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 [this message]
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=CAEXW_YSRkNDhJu591S3GGQyJnCxCDJy6u_+-1Q_8z5_cQHb1Qg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=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 \
    --cc=urezki@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).