From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.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 14:23:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y1aDy3maaO39ClSU@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y1ZtyjxKCcV0Hfjn@pc636>
> > 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.
>
Home screen swipe:
<snip>
<...>-15 [003] d..1 202.142205: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=105 bl=10
<...>-55 [001] d..1 202.166174: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=135 bl=10
<...>-26 [001] d..1 202.402182: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=221 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [003] d..1 202.650323: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=213 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [000] d..1 203.210537: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=90 bl=10
rcuop/5-55 [001] d..1 204.675671: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=14 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 205.162229: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=649 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [000] d..1 205.418214: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=291 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [003] d..1 206.134204: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=174 bl=10
rcuop/0-15 [003] d..1 206.726311: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=738 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [001] d..1 206.814168: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=865 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [003] d..1 207.278178: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=287 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [001] d..1 208.826279: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=506 bl=10
<snip>
An app launch:
<snip>
rcuop/3-40 [002] d..1 322.118620: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=99 bl=10
rcuop/4-48 [005] dn.1 322.454052: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=270 bl=10
rcuop/5-55 [005] d..1 322.454109: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=91 bl=10
rcuop/5-55 [007] d..1 322.470054: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=106 bl=10
rcuop/6-62 [005] d..1 322.482120: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=231 bl=10
rcuop/4-48 [001] d..1 322.494150: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=227 bl=10
<...>-69 [002] d..1 322.502442: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3350 bl=26
rcuop/1-26 [001] d..1 322.646099: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1685 bl=13
rcuop/2-33 [001] d..1 322.670071: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=438 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [001] d..1 322.674120: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=18 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [003] d..1 322.690152: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [002] d..1 322.698104: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [002] d..1 322.706167: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=313 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [003] d..1 322.710075: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=15 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [002] d..1 322.742137: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=13 bl=10
rcuop/5-55 [000] d..1 322.754270: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=157 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [000] d..1 322.762182: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=17 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [003] d..1 322.774088: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=38 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [000] d..1 322.778131: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=23 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [002] d..1 322.790105: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=33 bl=10
rcuop/4-48 [001] d..1 322.798074: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=340 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [002] d..1 322.806158: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=18 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [002] d..1 322.814057: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=18 bl=10
rcuop/0-15 [001] d..1 322.822476: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=333 bl=10
rcuop/4-48 [003] d..1 322.830102: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=11 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [001] d..1 322.846109: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=80 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [001] d..1 322.854162: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=145 bl=10
rcuop/4-48 [003] d..1 322.874129: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=21 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [001] d..1 322.878149: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=43 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [001] d..1 322.906273: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10 bl=10
rcuop/4-48 [001] d..1 322.918201: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=23 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [001] d..1 322.926212: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=86 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [001] d..1 322.946251: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=12 bl=10
rcuop/5-55 [003] d..1 322.954482: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=70 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [003] d..1 322.978146: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=20 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [002] d..1 323.014290: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=230 bl=10
rcuop/4-48 [001] d..1 323.026119: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=73 bl=10
rcuop/5-55 [003] d..1 323.026175: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=94 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [001] d..1 323.035310: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=70 bl=10
rcuop/0-15 [001] d..1 323.046231: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=165 bl=10
rcuop/6-62 [005] d..1 323.066132: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=179 bl=10
rcuop/1-26 [002] d..1 323.174202: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=61 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [003] d..1 323.190203: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=80 bl=10
rcuop/3-40 [003] d..1 323.206210: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=84 bl=10
rcuop/2-33 [003] d..1 323.226880: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5 bl=10
<snip>
It is on Android with 5.10 kernel running. I do not see that queue_rcu_work() makes
some noise.
Joel Could you please post your batch_start trace point output where you see the noise?
--
Uladzislau Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-24 19:57 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 [this message]
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=Y1aDy3maaO39ClSU@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).