Re: [PATCH 1/1] Reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 05:43:15PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:09:33PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 08:26:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:29:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mar 27, 2023, at 9:06 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:21:23AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > > > >>>> From: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:28 PM
> > > > >>>> [...]
> > > > >>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> A call to a synchronize_rcu() can be expensive from time point of view.
> > > > >>>> Different workloads can be affected by this especially the ones which use this
> > > > >>>> API in its time critical sections.
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> This is interesting and meaningful research. ;-)
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>>> For example in case of NOCB scenario the wakeme_after_rcu() callback
> > > > >>>> invocation depends on where in a nocb-list it is located. Below is an example
> > > > >>>> when it was the last out of ~3600 callbacks:
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Can it be implemented separately as follows?  it seems that the code is simpler
> > > > >> (only personal opinion)  😊.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> But I didn't test whether this reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> +static void rcu_poll_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> > > > >> +{
> > > > >> +       unsigned long gp_snap;
> > > > >> +
> > > > >> +       gp_snap = start_poll_synchronize_rcu();
> > > > >> +       while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(gp_snap))
> > > > >> +               schedule_timeout_idle(1);
> > > > > 
> > > > > I could be wrong, but my guess is that the guys working with
> > > > > battery-powered devices are not going to be very happy with this loop.
> > > > > 
> > > > > All those wakeups by all tasks waiting for a grace period end up
> > > > > consuming a surprisingly large amount of energy.
> > > > 
> > > > Is that really the common case? On the general topic of wake-ups:
> > > > Most of the time there should be only one
> > > > task waiting synchronously on a GP to end. If that is
> > > > true, then it feels like waking
> > > > up nocb Kthreads which indirectly wake other threads is doing more work than usual?
> > > 
> > > A good question, and the number of outstanding synchronize_rcu()
> > > calls will of course be limited by the number of tasks in the system.
> > > But I myself have raised the ire of battery-powered embedded folks with
> > > a rather small number of wakeups, so...
> > 
> > But unless I am missing something, even if there is single synchronize_rcu(),
> > you have a flurry of potential wakeups right now, instead of the bare minimum
> > I think. I have not measured how many wake ups, but I'd love to when I get
> > time. Maybe Vlad has some numbers.
> > 
> I will measure and have a look at wake-ups. But, what we have for now is
> if there are two callers of synchronize_rcu() on different CPUs, i guess
> two nocb-kthreads have to handle it, thus two nocb-kthreads have to be
> awaken to do the work. This patch needs only one wake-up to serve all
> users.

One wakeup per synchronize_rcu(), right?

> Anyway, i will provide some data and analysis of it.

Looking forward to seeing it!

							Thanx, Paul