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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975ADC433E6 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:09:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4779820734 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:09:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232894AbhA0HIq (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:08:46 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33766 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232938AbhA0HGm (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:06:42 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C529C06174A; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 23:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id u20so854014qku.7; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 23:06:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=AFxEQ869jFYwDgZUtm6gDaRcsgCCaXQ8f1907R8a+28=; b=gOeqsy1a9YuI6hZOqmrTN9p0BA/DLRg00fWBkVEMMUyPz5R+nUT0N6pL8KsULcE2Xt DjvZAzoQ8g2HCGh9eYnZkIxCQstBxZBsUh6bpZA3JQ8nqk/P+kbiJukeRyWRBIvKvisy ByCS/UA2XOtGE1KDXGbHjREHMG7ASk/0Uvm+ev4HS8Mn2FpQdJhc0hGaFF+wgJftkyao hthAFBQeDSOiPzris9U1ko78E2KR3hJUP25LqibY5dHrWyJtsYwrpeFru1aFKl4nltg7 2FjGdz82CJvEjwYGMPQ+t8GWtE/cOubysYE14IebfXg8G6DVtce9ZL1nSOBdaZGVVpBY bDYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=AFxEQ869jFYwDgZUtm6gDaRcsgCCaXQ8f1907R8a+28=; b=Q2Pzo4nXDcY0eWpFdpy7wJTzuZho1yZpiq4/AveoVUclUagMx3+wbkpgvT+J4qdrZ2 KTeQ5CFalz6iQW0ZQoe+suhp0yyVlfc61zXItGryIeXalJeHna3OHq63VC3x7hlyyuD6 ricVOtpXCrZfU04jeT/yzm+ivTH9rbpQeDjO2P2XuupmaoOCsFeaYXRu9WTseam4lA9H NdaiW/ZEQaGtxfRxaIDASi/XU106eiMTCjHIGIUxkrroQplfvnsNY6l4ioCWC9n4/pCh sAWSuIPz3wjCDSnpuY+L3YRYd1GX7T/0Cn1SDSegqJFZ1ug/2qrEXeYVjsPSL9PqnPiV m5Cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5337y8MFdHEFaE9QSgxAbFUyTWFc9Sm9F4lBTT/CmBc6BjXJ0qmj kinWuZjEtTcWxe8C3zMtBE0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhKWh8nLPSO+a2kURwE9dzJYC/lHXfCmxBWMqhtX2o7aj9hM7ImrSbZwDjHG/SdoaMx/l00Q== X-Received: by 2002:a37:8884:: with SMTP id k126mr9025611qkd.104.1611731161888; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 23:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from auth2-smtp.messagingengine.com (auth2-smtp.messagingengine.com. [66.111.4.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 75sm747049qta.68.2021.01.26.23.06.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 23:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0310627C0054; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:06:00 -0500 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdejgddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeeuohhquhhn ucfhvghnghcuoegsohhquhhnrdhfvghnghesghhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepvdelieegudfggeevjefhjeevueevieetjeeikedvgfejfeduheefhffggedv geejnecukfhppedufedurddutdejrddugeejrdduvdeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepsghoqhhunhdomhgvshhmthhprghuthhh phgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqieelvdeghedtieegqddujeejkeehheehvddqsghoqhhunh drfhgvnhhgpeepghhmrghilhdrtghomhesfhhigihmvgdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (unknown [131.107.147.126]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CE3FC1080067; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 02:05:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:05:24 +0800 From: Boqun Feng To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/4] rcu: Expedite deboost in case of deferred quiescent state Message-ID: References: <20210120043144.GA7045@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210120043236.7254-1-paulmck@kernel.org> <20210127044024.GI2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210127044024.GI2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:40:24PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:42:35AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 08:32:33PM -0800, paulmck@kernel.org wrote: > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" > > > > > > Historically, a task that has been subjected to RCU priority boosting is > > > deboosted at rcu_read_unlock() time. However, with the advent of deferred > > > quiescent states, if the outermost rcu_read_unlock() was invoked with > > > either bottom halves, interrupts, or preemption disabled, the deboosting > > > will be delayed for some time. During this time, a low-priority process > > > might be incorrectly running at a high real-time priority level. > > > > > > Fortunately, rcu_read_unlock_special() already provides mechanisms for > > > forcing a minimal deferral of quiescent states, at least for kernels > > > built with CONFIG_IRQ_WORK=y. These mechanisms are currently used > > > when expedited grace periods are pending that might be blocked by the > > > current task. This commit therefore causes those mechanisms to also be > > > used in cases where the current task has been or might soon be subjected > > > to RCU priority boosting. Note that this applies to all kernels built > > > with CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=y, regardless of whether or not they are also > > > built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y. > > > > > > This approach assumes that kernels build for use with aggressive real-time > > > applications are built with CONFIG_IRQ_WORK=y. It is likely to be far > > > simpler to enable CONFIG_IRQ_WORK=y than to implement a fast-deboosting > > > scheme that works correctly in its absence. > > > > > > While in the area, alphabetize the rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() > > > function's local variables. > > > > > > Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > > > Cc: Scott Wood > > > Cc: Lai Jiangshan > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > > --- > > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 26 ++++++++++++++------------ > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > > index 8b0feb2..fca31c6 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > > @@ -660,9 +660,9 @@ static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler(struct irq_work *iwp) > > > static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t) > > > { > > > unsigned long flags; > > > + bool irqs_were_disabled; > > > bool preempt_bh_were_disabled = > > > !!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK)); > > > - bool irqs_were_disabled; > > > > > > /* NMI handlers cannot block and cannot safely manipulate state. */ > > > if (in_nmi()) > > > @@ -671,30 +671,32 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t) > > > local_irq_save(flags); > > > irqs_were_disabled = irqs_disabled_flags(flags); > > > if (preempt_bh_were_disabled || irqs_were_disabled) { > > > - bool exp; > > > + bool expboost; // Expedited GP in flight or possible boosting. > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode; > > > > > > - exp = (t->rcu_blocked_node && > > > - READ_ONCE(t->rcu_blocked_node->exp_tasks)) || > > > - (rdp->grpmask & READ_ONCE(rnp->expmask)); > > > + expboost = (t->rcu_blocked_node && READ_ONCE(t->rcu_blocked_node->exp_tasks)) || > > > + (rdp->grpmask & READ_ONCE(rnp->expmask)) || > > > + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_BOOST) && irqs_were_disabled && > > > + t->rcu_blocked_node); > > > > I take it that you check whether possible boosting is in progress via > > the last expression of "||", ie: > > > > (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_BOOST) && irqs_were_disabled && > > t->rcu_blocked_node) > > > > if so, I don't see the point of using the new "expboost" in the > > raise_softirq_irqoff() branch, because if in_irq() is false, we only > > raise softirq if irqs_were_disabled is false (otherwise, we may take the > > risk of doing a wakeup with a pi or rq lock held, IIRC), and the > > boosting part of the "expboost" above is only true if irqs_were_disabled > > is true, so using expboost makes no different here. > > I started out with two local variables, one for each side of the ||, > but this looked nicer. > > > > // Need to defer quiescent state until everything is enabled. > > > - if (use_softirq && (in_irq() || (exp && !irqs_were_disabled))) { > > > + if (use_softirq && (in_irq() || (expboost && !irqs_were_disabled))) { > > > // Using softirq, safe to awaken, and either the > > > - // wakeup is free or there is an expedited GP. > > > + // wakeup is free or there is either an expedited > > > + // GP in flight or a potential need to deboost. > > > > and this comment will be incorrect, we won't enter here solely because > > there is a potential need to deboost. > > You are quite right, given the !irqs_were_disabled. > > > That said, why the boosting condition has a "irqs_were_disabled" in it? > > What if a task gets boosted because of RCU boosting, and exit the RCU > > read-side c.s. with irq enabled and there is no expedited GP in flight, > > will the task get deboosted quickly enough? > > Because if !irqs_were_disabled, there will be a local_bh_enable() or > a preempt_enable(), give or take preempt_enable_no_resched(), and those > will both get the scheduler involved because of the set_tsk_need_resched() > and set_preempt_need_resched(). There is thus no need for the irq_work > unless irqs_were_disabled. > But if so, shouldn't we check !preemp_bh_were_disabled instead of irqs_were_disabled? I.e. there is no need for the irq_work unless preemption and bottom halves are all enabled (IOW, we cannot expect the task to get into scheduler soon via *_enable()). Current what we are doing is if irqs_were_disabled is true (along with other checks pass), we queue a irq work, but in this situation, preept_bh_were_disabled might be true as well, which means there may be a preempt_enable() not far away. Consider the following simple example, if we have a in-flight gp or this task has been boosted: preempt_disable(); local_irq_disable(); rcu_read_lock(); ... rcu_read_unlock(); // current we will queue a irq work here. local_irq_enable(); preempt_enable(); // but we will enter scheduelr here./ > I am not all that worried about preempt_enable_no_resched() because > it is a problem for RT even in the absence of RCU priority boosting. > And the current uses appear to be in things that one would not use while > running an RT workload. > > > Maybe I'm missing some subtle? > > Or maybe I am. Thoughts? > > Thanx, Paul > > > Regards, > > Boqun > > > > > raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ); > > > } else { > > > // Enabling BH or preempt does reschedule, so... > > > - // Also if no expediting, slow is OK. > > > - // Plus nohz_full CPUs eventually get tick enabled. > > > + // Also if no expediting and no possible deboosting, > > > + // slow is OK. Plus nohz_full CPUs eventually get > > > + // tick enabled. > > > set_tsk_need_resched(current); > > > set_preempt_need_resched(); > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_WORK) && irqs_were_disabled && so the irqs_were_disabled here should be !preempt_bh_were_disabled? Regards, Boqun > > > - !rdp->defer_qs_iw_pending && exp && cpu_online(rdp->cpu)) { > > > + expboost && !rdp->defer_qs_iw_pending && cpu_online(rdp->cpu)) { > > > // Get scheduler to re-evaluate and call hooks. > > > // If !IRQ_WORK, FQS scan will eventually IPI. > > > - init_irq_work(&rdp->defer_qs_iw, > > > - rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler); > > > + init_irq_work(&rdp->defer_qs_iw, rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler); > > > rdp->defer_qs_iw_pending = true; > > > irq_work_queue_on(&rdp->defer_qs_iw, rdp->cpu); > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.9.5 > > >