Message-ID: <20120413184228.GC2402@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:42:28 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu: Limit GP initialization to CPUs that have been
 online

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:04:36PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 12:23 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 05:48:06AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 15:24 -0500, Dimitri Sivanich wrote: 
> > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 04:35:33PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > > > > Care to try this?  There's likely a better way to defeat ->qsmask == 0
> > > > > take/release all locks thingy, however, if Paul can safely bail in
> > > > > force_qs_rnp() in tweakable latency for big boxen patch, I should be
> > > > > able to safely (and shamelessly) steal that, and should someone hotplug
> > > > > a CPU, and we race, do the same thing bail for small boxen.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested on a 48 cpu UV system with an interrupt latency test on isolated
> > > > cpus and a moderate to heavy load on the rest of the system.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch appears to take care of all excessive (> 35 usec) RCU-based
> > > > latency in the 3.0 kernel on this particular system for this particular
> > > > setup.  Without the patch, I see many latencies on this system > 150 usec
> > > > (and some > 200 usec).
> > > 
> > > Figures.  I bet Paul has a better idea though.  Too bad we can't whack
> > > those extra barriers, that would likely wipe RCU from your radar.
> > 
> > Sorry for the silence -- was hit by the germs going around.  I do have
> > some concerns about some of the code, but very much appreciate the two
> > of you continuing on this in my absence!
> 
> Hi Paul (and Dimitri),
> 
> Just got back to this.  I changed the patch around to check for a
> hotplug event in force_qs_rnp(), and should that happen, process any
> freshly added CPUs immediately rather than tell the caller to restart
> from scratch.  The rest of the delta is cosmetic, and there should be
> zero performance change.
> 
> Does this change address any of your concerns? 

Apologies for being slow to respond...

One of my main concerns was present in my original patch:  I now believe
that a given grace period needs to operate on the set of rcu_node
structures (and CPUs) that were present at the beginning of the grace
period.  Otherwise, things could get confused if a given CPU participated
in an later force_quiescent_state() state, but not in an earlier one.

I believe that the correct way to handle this is to squirrel the maximum
number of CPUs away in the rcu_state structure at the beginning of each
grace period and use that as the limit.

I call out a few more below.

						Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  kernel/rcutree.c |   71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  kernel/rcutree.h |   16 ++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_d
> 
>  static struct rcu_state *rcu_state;
> 
> +int rcu_max_cpu __read_mostly;	/* Largest # CPU that has ever been online. */
> +
>  /*
>   * The rcu_scheduler_active variable transitions from zero to one just
>   * before the first task is spawned.  So when this variable is zero, RCU
> @@ -827,25 +829,33 @@ rcu_start_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsi
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> 
>  	if (!cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp) || rsp->fqs_active) {
> +		struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rnp;
> +
>  		if (cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp))
>  			rsp->fqs_need_gp = 1;
>  		if (rnp->completed == rsp->completed) {
> -			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> +			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp_root->lock, flags);
>  			return;
>  		}
> -		raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);	 /* irqs remain disabled. */

Acquiring non-root rcu_node structure ->lock (in loop below) while
holding the root rcu_node lock results in deadlock in some configurations.

>  		/*
>  		 * Propagate new ->completed value to rcu_node structures
>  		 * so that other CPUs don't have to wait until the start
>  		 * of the next grace period to process their callbacks.
> +		 * We must hold the root rcu_node structure's ->lock
> +		 * across rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first() in order to
> +		 * synchronize with CPUs coming online for the first time.
>  		 */
>  		rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> +			if (rnp == rnp_root) {
> +				rnp->completed = rsp->completed;
> +				continue;
> +			}
>  			raw_spin_lock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs already disabled. */
>  			rnp->completed = rsp->completed;
>  			raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled. */
>  		}
> -		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp_root->lock, flags);
>  		return;
>  	}
> 
> @@ -935,7 +945,7 @@ static void rcu_report_qs_rsp(struct rcu
>  		rsp->gp_max = gp_duration;
>  	rsp->completed = rsp->gpnum;
>  	rsp->signaled = RCU_GP_IDLE;
> -	rcu_start_gp(rsp, flags);  /* releases root node's rnp->lock. */
> +	rcu_start_gp(rsp, flags);  /* releases root node's ->lock. */
>  }
> 
>  /*
> @@ -1313,13 +1323,18 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int us
>  static void force_qs_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, int (*f)(struct rcu_data *))
>  {
>  	unsigned long bit;
> -	int cpu;
> +	int cpu, max_cpu = rcu_max_cpu, next = 0;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	unsigned long mask;
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> 
> +cpus_hotplugged:
>  	rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rsp, rnp) {
> -		mask = 0;

Doesn't this leave mask uninitialized?

> +		if (rnp->grplo > max_cpu)
> +			break;
> +		if(rnp->grphi < next)
> +			continue;
> +
>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
>  		if (!rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) {
>  			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> @@ -1330,14 +1345,16 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(struct rcu_stat
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  		cpu = rnp->grplo;
> -		bit = 1;
> -		for (; cpu <= rnp->grphi; cpu++, bit <<= 1) {
> +		if (unlikely(cpu < next))
> +			cpu = next;
> +		for (bit = 1, mask = 0; cpu <= rnp->grphi; cpu++, bit <<= 1) {
> +			if (cpu > max_cpu)
> +				break;
>  			if ((rnp->qsmask & bit) != 0 &&
>  			    f(per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu)))
>  				mask |= bit;
>  		}
>  		if (mask != 0) {
> -
>  			/* rcu_report_qs_rnp() releases rnp->lock. */
>  			rcu_report_qs_rnp(mask, rsp, rnp, flags);
>  			continue;
> @@ -1345,10 +1362,20 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(struct rcu_stat
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>  	}
>  	rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> -	if (rnp->qsmask == 0) {
> -		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> -		rcu_initiate_boost(rnp, flags); /* releases rnp->lock. */
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> +
> +	/* Handle unlikely intervening hotplug event. */
> +	next = ++max_cpu;
> +	max_cpu = rcu_get_max_cpu();
> +	if (unlikely(next <= max_cpu)) {
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> +		goto cpus_hotplugged;

I don't believe that we need this if we snapshot rcu_max_cpu in the
rcu_state structure at the beginning of each grace period.

>  	}
> +
> +	if (rnp->qsmask == 0)
> +		rcu_initiate_boost(rnp, flags); /* releases rnp->lock. */
> +	else
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>  }
> 
>  /*
> @@ -1862,6 +1889,7 @@ rcu_init_percpu_data(int cpu, struct rcu
>  	unsigned long mask;
>  	struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> +	struct rcu_node *rnp_init;
> 
>  	/* Set up local state, ensuring consistent view of global state. */
>  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> @@ -1882,6 +1910,20 @@ rcu_init_percpu_data(int cpu, struct rcu
>  	/* Exclude any attempts to start a new GP on large systems. */
>  	raw_spin_lock(&rsp->onofflock);		/* irqs already disabled. */
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * Initialize any rcu_node structures that will see their first use.
> +	 * Note that rcu_max_cpu cannot change out from under us because the
> +	 * hotplug locks are held.
> +	 */
> +	raw_spin_lock(&rnp->lock);		/* irqs already disabled. */
> +	for (rnp_init = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, rcu_max_cpu)->mynode + 1;
> +	     rnp_init <= rdp->mynode;
> +	     rnp_init++) {
> +		rnp_init->gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> +		rnp_init->completed = rsp->completed;
> +	}
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);		/* irqs remain disabled. */
> +
>  	/* Add CPU to rcu_node bitmasks. */
>  	rnp = rdp->mynode;
>  	mask = rdp->grpmask;
> @@ -1907,6 +1949,11 @@ static void __cpuinit rcu_prepare_cpu(in
>  	rcu_init_percpu_data(cpu, &rcu_sched_state, 0);
>  	rcu_init_percpu_data(cpu, &rcu_bh_state, 0);
>  	rcu_preempt_init_percpu_data(cpu);
> +	if (cpu > rcu_max_cpu) {
> +		smp_mb(); /* Initialization before rcu_max_cpu assignment. */
> +		rcu_max_cpu = cpu;
> +		smp_mb(); /* rcu_max_cpu assignment before later uses. */

If we make rcu_init_percpu_data() update a second new field in the
rcu_state structure, we can get rid of the memory barriers.

> +	}
>  }
> 
>  /*
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.h
> @@ -191,11 +191,23 @@ struct rcu_node {
> 
>  /*
>   * Do a full breadth-first scan of the rcu_node structures for the
> - * specified rcu_state structure.
> + * specified rcu_state structure.  The caller must hold either the
> + * ->onofflock or the root rcu_node structure's ->lock.
>   */
> +extern int rcu_max_cpu;
> +static inline int rcu_get_max_cpu(void)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	smp_mb();  /* Pairs with barriers in rcu_prepare_cpu(). */
> +	ret = rcu_max_cpu;
> +	smp_mb();  /* Pairs with barriers in rcu_prepare_cpu(). */
> +	return ret;
> +}
>  #define rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) \
>  	for ((rnp) = &(rsp)->node[0]; \
> -	     (rnp) < &(rsp)->node[NUM_RCU_NODES]; (rnp)++)
> +	     (rnp) <= per_cpu_ptr((rsp)->rda, rcu_get_max_cpu())->mynode; \
> +	     (rnp)++)
> 
>  /*
>   * Do a breadth-first scan of the non-leaf rcu_node structures for the
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists