linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Parallelize and economize NOCB kthread wakeups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140702160412.GO19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:04:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Parallelize and economize NOCB kthread
 wakeups

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 08:39:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 07:20:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > An 80-CPU system with a context-switch-heavy workload can require so
> > > many NOCB kthread wakeups that the RCU grace-period kthreads spend several
> > > tens of percent of a CPU just awakening things.  This clearly will not
> > > scale well: If you add enough CPUs, the RCU grace-period kthreads would
> > > get behind, increasing grace-period latency.
> > > 
> > > To avoid this problem, this commit divides the NOCB kthreads into leaders
> > > and followers, where the grace-period kthreads awaken the leaders each of
> > > whom in turn awakens its followers.  By default, the number of groups of
> > > kthreads is the square root of the number of CPUs, but this default may
> > > be overridden using the rcutree.rcu_nocb_leader_stride boot parameter.
> > > This reduces the number of wakeups done per grace period by the RCU
> > > grace-period kthread by the square root of the number of CPUs, but of
> > > course by shifting those wakeups to the leaders.  In addition, because
> > > the leaders do grace periods on behalf of their respective followers,
> > > the number of wakeups of the followers decreases by up to a factor of two.
> > > Instead of being awakened once when new callbacks arrive and again
> > > at the end of the grace period, the followers are awakened only at
> > > the end of the grace period.
> > > 
> > > For a numerical example, in a 4096-CPU system, the grace-period kthread
> > > would awaken 64 leaders, each of which would awaken its 63 followers
> > > at the end of the grace period.  This compares favorably with the 79
> > > wakeups for the grace-period kthread on an 80-CPU system.
> > 
> > Urgh, how about we kill the entire nocb nonsense and try again? This is
> > getting quite rediculous.
> 
> Sure thing, Peter.

So you don't think this has gotten a little out of hand? The NOCB stuff
has lead to these masses of rcu threads and now you're adding extra
cache misses to the perfectly sane and normal code paths just to deal
with so many threads.

And all to support a feature that nearly nobody uses. And you were
talking about making nocb the default rcu...



Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped