From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Avoid rcu_core() if CPU just left guest vcpu
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 18:15:14 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zj6OYvivXF7tUIqV@LeoBras> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zj56kVxuTJm4EsAn@LeoBras>
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 04:50:41PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:41:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 02:12:32PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:21:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:06:40PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 04:45:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 07:14:18AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 05:16:57AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ . . . ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here I suppose something like this can take care of not needing to convert
> > > > > > > > ms -> jiffies every rcu_pending():
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + nocb_patience_delay = msecs_to_jiffies(nocb_patience_delay);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Uh, there is more to it, actually. We need to make sure the user
> > > > > > > understands that we are rounding-down the value to multiple of a jiffy
> > > > > > > period, so it's not a surprise if the delay value is not exactly the same
> > > > > > > as the passed on kernel cmdline.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So something like bellow diff should be ok, as this behavior is explained
> > > > > > > in the docs, and pr_info() will print the effective value.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good point, and I have taken your advice on making the documentation
> > > > > > say what it does.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks :)
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Leo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > > > > > index 0a3b0fd1910e..9a50be9fd9eb 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > > > > > @@ -4974,20 +4974,28 @@
> > > > > > > otherwise be caused by callback floods through
> > > > > > > use of the ->nocb_bypass list. However, in the
> > > > > > > common non-flooded case, RCU queues directly to
> > > > > > > the main ->cblist in order to avoid the extra
> > > > > > > overhead of the ->nocb_bypass list and its lock.
> > > > > > > But if there are too many callbacks queued during
> > > > > > > a single jiffy, RCU pre-queues the callbacks into
> > > > > > > the ->nocb_bypass queue. The definition of "too
> > > > > > > many" is supplied by this kernel boot parameter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + rcutree.nocb_patience_delay= [KNL]
> > > > > > > + On callback-offloaded (rcu_nocbs) CPUs, avoid
> > > > > > > + disturbing RCU unless the grace period has
> > > > > > > + reached the specified age in milliseconds.
> > > > > > > + Defaults to zero. Large values will be capped
> > > > > > > + at five seconds. Values rounded-down to a multiple
> > > > > > > + of a jiffy period.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > rcutree.qhimark= [KNL]
> > > > > > > Set threshold of queued RCU callbacks beyond which
> > > > > > > batch limiting is disabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rcutree.qlowmark= [KNL]
> > > > > > > Set threshold of queued RCU callbacks below which
> > > > > > > batch limiting is re-enabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rcutree.qovld= [KNL]
> > > > > > > Set threshold of queued RCU callbacks beyond which
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > > > > > > index fcf2b4aa3441..62ede401420f 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > > > > > > @@ -512,20 +512,21 @@ do { \
> > > > > > > local_irq_save(flags); \
> > > > > > > if (rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded(&(rdp)->cblist)) \
> > > > > > > raw_spin_lock(&(rdp)->nocb_lock); \
> > > > > > > } while (0)
> > > > > > > #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU */
> > > > > > > #define rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags) local_irq_save(flags)
> > > > > > > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static void rcu_bind_gp_kthread(void);
> > > > > > > static bool rcu_nohz_full_cpu(void);
> > > > > > > +static bool rcu_on_patience_delay(void);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think we need an access function, but will check below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > /* Forward declarations for tree_stall.h */
> > > > > > > static void record_gp_stall_check_time(void);
> > > > > > > static void rcu_iw_handler(struct irq_work *iwp);
> > > > > > > static void check_cpu_stall(struct rcu_data *rdp);
> > > > > > > static void rcu_check_gp_start_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
> > > > > > > const unsigned long gpssdelay);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /* Forward declarations for tree_exp.h. */
> > > > > > > static void sync_rcu_do_polled_gp(struct work_struct *wp);
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > > > index 340bbefe5f65..639243b0410f 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > > > @@ -5,20 +5,21 @@
> > > > > > > * or preemptible semantics.
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > * Copyright Red Hat, 2009
> > > > > > > * Copyright IBM Corporation, 2009
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > * Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #include "../locking/rtmutex_common.h"
> > > > > > > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is already pulled in by the enclosing tree.c file, so it should not
> > > > > > be necessary to include it again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even better :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > (Or did you get a build failure when
> > > > > > leaving this out?)
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't, it's just that my editor complained the symbols were not getting
> > > > > properly resolved, so I included it and it was fixed. But since clangd is
> > > > > know to make some mistakes, I should have compile-test'd before adding it.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, got it! ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > > > static bool rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > * In order to read the offloaded state of an rdp in a safe
> > > > > > > * and stable way and prevent from its value to be changed
> > > > > > > * under us, we must either hold the barrier mutex, the cpu
> > > > > > > * hotplug lock (read or write) or the nocb lock. Local
> > > > > > > * non-preemptible reads are also safe. NOCB kthreads and
> > > > > > > * timers have their own means of synchronization against the
> > > > > > > @@ -86,20 +87,33 @@ static void __init rcu_bootup_announce_oddness(void)
> > > > > > > if (rcu_kick_kthreads)
> > > > > > > pr_info("\tKick kthreads if too-long grace period.\n");
> > > > > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD))
> > > > > > > pr_info("\tRCU callback double-/use-after-free debug is enabled.\n");
> > > > > > > if (gp_preinit_delay)
> > > > > > > pr_info("\tRCU debug GP pre-init slowdown %d jiffies.\n", gp_preinit_delay);
> > > > > > > if (gp_init_delay)
> > > > > > > pr_info("\tRCU debug GP init slowdown %d jiffies.\n", gp_init_delay);
> > > > > > > if (gp_cleanup_delay)
> > > > > > > pr_info("\tRCU debug GP cleanup slowdown %d jiffies.\n", gp_cleanup_delay);
> > > > > > > + if (nocb_patience_delay < 0) {
> > > > > > > + pr_info("\tRCU NOCB CPU patience negative (%d), resetting to zero.\n",
> > > > > > > + nocb_patience_delay);
> > > > > > > + nocb_patience_delay = 0;
> > > > > > > + } else if (nocb_patience_delay > 5 * MSEC_PER_SEC) {
> > > > > > > + pr_info("\tRCU NOCB CPU patience too large (%d), resetting to %ld.\n",
> > > > > > > + nocb_patience_delay, 5 * MSEC_PER_SEC);
> > > > > > > + nocb_patience_delay = msecs_to_jiffies(5 * MSEC_PER_SEC);
> > > > > > > + } else if (nocb_patience_delay) {
> > > > > > > + nocb_patience_delay = msecs_to_jiffies(nocb_patience_delay);
> > > > > > > + pr_info("\tRCU NOCB CPU patience set to %d milliseconds.\n",
> > > > > > > + jiffies_to_msecs(nocb_patience_delay);
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just did this here at the end:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nocb_patience_delay_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(nocb_patience_delay);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, you are wanting to print out the milliseconds after the rounding
> > > > > > to jiffies.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's right, just to make sure the user gets the effective patience time,
> > > > > instead of the before-rounding one, which was on input.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am going to hold off on that for the moment, but I hear your request
> > > > > > and I have not yet said "no". ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure :)
> > > > > It's just something I think it's nice to have (as a user).
> > > >
> > > > If you would like to do a separate patch adding this, here are the
> > > > requirements:
> > > >
> > > > o If the current code prints nothing, nothing additional should
> > > > be printed.
> > > >
> > > > o If the rounding ended up with the same value (as it should in
> > > > systems with HZ=1000), nothing additional should be printed.
> > > >
> > > > o Your choice as to whether or not you want to print out the
> > > > jiffies value.
> > > >
> > > > o If the additional message is on a new line, it needs to be
> > > > indented so that it is clear that it is subordinate to the
> > > > previous message.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, you can use pr_cont() to continue the previous
> > > > line, of course being careful about "\n".
> > > >
> > > > Probably also something that I am forgetting, but that is most of it.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > I will work on a patch doing that :)
> >
> > Very good, looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
> >
> > My current state is on the "dev" branch of the -rcu tree, so please base
> > on that.
>
> Thanks! I used it earlier to send the previous diff :)
>
> >
> > > > > > > if (!use_softirq)
> > > > > > > pr_info("\tRCU_SOFTIRQ processing moved to rcuc kthreads.\n");
> > > > > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG))
> > > > > > > pr_info("\tRCU debug extended QS entry/exit.\n");
> > > > > > > rcupdate_announce_bootup_oddness();
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static void rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp, bool wake);
> > > > > > > @@ -1260,10 +1274,29 @@ static bool rcu_nohz_full_cpu(void)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > * Bind the RCU grace-period kthreads to the housekeeping CPU.
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > static void rcu_bind_gp_kthread(void)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > if (!tick_nohz_full_enabled())
> > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > housekeeping_affine(current, HK_TYPE_RCU);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > + * Is this CPU a NO_HZ_FULL CPU that should ignore RCU if the time since the
> > > > > > > + * start of current grace period is smaller than nocb_patience_delay ?
> > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > + * This code relies on the fact that all NO_HZ_FULL CPUs are also
> > > > > > > + * RCU_NOCB_CPU CPUs.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > +static bool rcu_on_patience_delay(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You lost me on this one. Why do we need the #ifdef instead of
> > > > > > IS_ENABLED()? Also, please note that rcu_nohz_full_cpu() is already a
> > > > > > compile-time @false in CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=n kernels.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right. rcu_nohz_full_cpu() has a high chance of being inlined on
> > > > > if ((...) && rcu_nohz_full_cpu())
> > > > > And since it returns false, this whole statement will be compiled out, and
> > > > > the new function will not exist in CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=n, so there is no
> > > > > need to test it.
> > > >
> > > > Very good! You had me going there for a bit. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > > > + if (!nocb_patience_delay)
> > > > > > > + return false;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We get this automatically with the comparison below, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Right
> > > > >
> > > > > > If so, we
> > > > > > are not gaining much by creating the helper function. Or am I missing
> > > > > > some trick here?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, it's a fastpath. Up to here, we just need to read
> > > > > nocb_patience_delay{,_jiffies} from memory.
> > > >
> > > > Just nocb_patience_delay_jiffies, correct? Unless I am missing something,
> > > > nocb_patience_delay is unused after boot.
> > >
> > > Right, I used both because I was referring to the older version and the
> > > current version with _jiffies.
> >
> > Fair enough!
> >
> > > > > If we don't include the fastpath we have to read jiffies and
> > > > > rcu_state.gp_start, which can take extra time: up to 2 cache misses.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought it could be relevant, as we reduce the overhead of the new
> > > > > parameter when it's disabled (patience=0).
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think that could be relevant?
> > > >
> > > > Well, the hardware's opinion is what matters. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > But the caller's code path reads jiffies a few times, so it should
> > > > be hot in the cache, correct?
> > >
> > > Right, but I wonder how are the chances of it getting updated between
> > > caller's use and this function's. Same for gp_start.
> >
> > Well, jiffies is updated at most once per millisecond, and gp_start is
> > updated at most once per few milliseconds. So the chances of it being
> > updated within that code sequence are quite small.
>
> Fair enough, and we probably don't need to worry about it getting
> cached-out in this sequence, as well.
>
> Also time_before() is a macro and we don't need to worry on the function
> call, so we just spend 2 extra L1-cache reads and a couple arithmetic
> instructions which are not supposed to take long, so it's fair to assume
> the fast-path would not be that much faster than the slow path, which means
> we don't need a fast path after all.
>
> Thanks for helping me notice that :)
>
> >
> > > > But that does lead to another topic, namely the possibility of tagging
> > > > nocb_patience_delay_jiffies with __read_mostly.
> > >
> > > Oh, right. This was supposed to be in the diff I sent earlier, but I
> > > completelly forgot to change before sending. So, yeah, I agree on
> > > nocb_patience_delay being __read_mostly;
> > >
> > > > And there might be
> > > > a number of other of RCU's variables that could be similarly tagged
> > > > in order to avoid false sharing. (But is there any false sharing?
> > > > This might be worth testing.)
> > >
> > > Maybe there isn't, but I wonder if it would hurt performance if they were
> > > tagged as __read_only anyway.
> >
> > Let's be at least a little careful here. It is just as easy to hurt
> > performance by marking things __read_mostly or __read_only as it is
> > to help performance. ;-)
>
> Fair enough :)
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>
Oh, btw, for what it's worth:
Reviewed-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Thanks!
Leo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-10 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-28 17:19 [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Avoid rcu_core() if CPU just left guest vcpu Leonardo Bras
2024-03-28 17:19 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] kvm: Implement guest_exit_last_time() Leonardo Bras
2024-03-28 17:19 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] rcu: Ignore RCU in nohz_full cpus if it was running a guest recently Leonardo Bras
2024-04-01 15:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-04-01 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Avoid rcu_core() if CPU just left guest vcpu Sean Christopherson
2024-04-05 13:45 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-04-05 14:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-06 0:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-04-08 17:16 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-08 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-04-08 20:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-08 21:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-04-08 21:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-08 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-04-08 23:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-08 23:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-04-10 2:39 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-04-15 19:47 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-04-15 21:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-16 12:36 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-04-16 14:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-17 16:14 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-04-17 17:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-03 20:44 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-06 18:47 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-05-07 18:05 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-07 22:36 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-03 18:42 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-03 19:09 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-03 21:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-03 22:00 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-03 22:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-07 17:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-07 19:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-07 21:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-07 21:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-07 23:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-08 0:08 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-08 2:51 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-08 3:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-08 6:19 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-08 14:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-09 3:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-09 8:16 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-09 10:14 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-09 23:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-10 16:06 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-10 16:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-10 17:12 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-10 17:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-10 19:50 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-10 21:15 ` Leonardo Bras [this message]
2024-05-10 21:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-09 22:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-09 23:07 ` Leonardo Bras Soares Passos
2024-05-11 2:08 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-08 3:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-08 4:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-08 14:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-08 15:35 ` Sean Christopherson
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=Zj6OYvivXF7tUIqV@LeoBras \
--to=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).