Message-Id: <20161221034024.GC3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2016 19:40:24 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 4/5] rcu: Use for_each_leaf_node_cpu() in force_qs_rnp()

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:34:56AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 07:23:52AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 01:59:14PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:09:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:15:15PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 02:51:36PM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > > > > On 15/12/16 14:42, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:04:59PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:42:03AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > > >>> ->qsmask of an RCU leaf node is usually more sparse than the
> > > > > > >>> corresponding cpu_possible_mask. So replace the
> > > > > > >>> for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu() in force_qs_rnp() with
> > > > > > >>> for_each_leaf_node_cpu() to save several checks.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> [Note we need to use "1UL << bit" instead of "1 << bit" to generate the
> > > > > > >>> corresponding mask for a bit because @mask is unsigned long, this was
> > > > > > >>> spotted by Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com> and CoverityScan in
> > > > > > >>> a previous version of this patch.]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Nit: This note can go now that we use leaf_node_cpu_bit(). ;)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I kinda keep this here for honoring the effort of finding out this bug
> > > > > > > from Colin, but yes, it's no longer needed here for the current code.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yep, remove it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paul, here is a modified version of this patch, what I only did is
> > > > > removing this note.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Besides I rebased the whole series on the current rcu/dev branch of -rcu
> > > > > tree, on this very commit:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	8e9b2521b18a ("doc: Quick-Quiz answers are now inline")
> > > > > 
> > > > > And I put the latest version at
> > > > > 
> > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/boqun/linux.git leaf-node
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you thought it's better, I could send a v3 ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > I would feel better about this patchset if it reduced the number of lines
> > > > of code rather than increasing them.  That said, part of the increase
> > > > is a commment.  Still, I am not convinced that the extra level of macro
> > > > is carrying its weight.
> > > > 
> > > > dbf18a2422e2 ("rcu: Introduce for_each_leaf_node_cpu()")
> > > > 
> > > > 	The commit log needs a bit of wordsmithing.
> > > > 
> > > > 	The added WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_possible(cpu)) still seems strange.
> > > > 	What is its purpose, really?  What does its triggering tell you?
> > > > 	What other checks did you consider as an alternative?
> > > 
> > > The check is an over-case one, it's introduced because I'm worried about
> > > some code outside the RCU code mis-sets the ->qsmask* or ->expmask* on
> > > an "impossible" CPU. I will explanation later in more details.
> > 
> > Over-case check?
> 
> Oops, sorry for the typo, should be "over-care check".
> 
> > > > 	And if you are going to add checks of this type, should you
> > > > 	also check for this being a leaf rcu_node structure?
> > > 
> > > I don't think I want to check that, and I don't think check
> > > cpu_possible(cpu) in the macro is similar to that.
> > 
> > If we are adding checks, they should be catching bugs.  This is of
> > course a trade-off -- too many checks makes the code less readable
> > and makes it more difficult to change the code.  Too few checks
> > makes bugs harder to pin down.
> > 
> > At this point, I don't really see the need for either check.  ;-)
> 
> Agreed, my intent is to keep this overcare check for couples of releases
> and if no one shoots his/her foot, we can remove it, if not, it
> definitely means this part is subtle, and we need to pay more attention
> to it, maybe write some regression tests for this particular problem to
> help developers avoid it.
> 
> This check is supposed to be removed, so I'm not stick to keeping it.

I suggest keeping through validation.  If it triggers during that time,
consider keeping it longer.  If it does not trigger, remove it before
it goes upstream.

> > > > 3f0b4ba1fe94 ("rcu: Use for_each_leaf_node_cpu() in RCU stall checking")
> > > > 
> > > > 	This does look a bit nicer, but why the added blank lines?
> > > > 	Are they really helping?
> > > > 
> > > > 	The commit log seems a bit misplaced.  This code is almost never
> > > > 	executed (once per 21 seconds at the most), so performance really
> > > > 	isn't a consideration.	The simpler-looking code might be.
> > > > 
> > > > fd799f1ac7b7 ("rcu: Use for_each_leaf_node_cpu() in ->expmask iteration")
> > > > 
> > > > 	Ditto on blank lines.
> > > > 
> > > > 	Again, this code is executed per expedited grace period, so
> > > > 	performance really isn't a big deal.  More of a big deal than
> > > > 	the stall-warning code, but we still are way off of any fastpath.
> > > > 
> > > > 69a1baedbf42 ("rcu: Use for_each_leaf_node_cpu() in force_qs_rnp()")
> > > > 
> > > > 	Ditto again on blank lines.
> > > > 
> > > > 	And on the commit log.  This code is executed about once
> > > > 	per several jiffies, and on larger machines, per 20 jiffies
> > > > 	or so.  Performance really isn't a consideration.
> > > > 
> > > > 7b00e50e3efb ("rcu: Use for_each_leaf_node_cpu() in online CPU iteration")
> > > > 
> > > > 	And another ditto on blank lines.
> > > > 
> > > > 	This code executes once per CPU-hotplug operation, so again isn't
> > > > 	at all performance critical.
> > > > 
> > > > In short, if you are trying to sell this to me as a significant performance
> > > > boost, I am not buying.  The added WARN_ON_ONCE() looks quite dubious,
> > > 
> > > Yep, it won't help the performance a lot, but it 
> > > 
> > > 1)	helps the performance in theory, because it iterates less CPUs
> > > 
> > > 2)	makes code cleaner. By "cleaner", I mean we can a) affort more
> > > 	blank lines to make loops separated from other code and b)
> > > 	descrease the indent levels for those loops. But, yes I should
> > > 	add those points in the commit log, because those are more
> > > 	visible effects.
> > 
> > #2 is the more important of the two, though you still have not
> > convinced me that those particular blank lines are helping.  Making
> 
> TBH, blank lines really help me ;-) So my habit is more like adding
> blank lines between logical parts like if-else, for, while as more as
> possible.
> 
> > these functions longer isn't necessarily a good thing.
> 
> But you are right, I probably shouldn't introduce more blank lines in
> this kind of patchset, after all, this patchset did want to clean the
> code a little bit, but adding more blank lines seems like we are making
> things more complicated so we need those blank lines to separate logical
> parts. So we don't want those blank lines.

It is indeed hard to see a simplification patch unless diffstat shows
fewer lines...

> > > > though perhaps I am misunderstanding its purpose.  My assumption is
> > > > that you want to detect missing UL suffixes on bitmask constants, in
> > > > which case I bet there is a better way.
> > > 
> > > The WARN_ON_ONCE() is not for detecting missing UL suffixes on bitmask
> > > constatns, and we don't need to check that, because we use
> > > leaf_node_cpu_id() now. As I said, this is an over-case check, and we
> > > can drop if we guarante that CPUs masked in ->qsmask* and ->expmask*
> > > must be a "possible" CPU, IOW, ->qsmask* and ->expmask* are the subsets
> > > (with offset fixed by ->grplo) of cpu_possible_mask.
> > 
> > In which case it is not needed.
> > 
> > > Hmm.. and I just check the code, the initial values of ->qsmask* and
> > > ->expmask* are from ->qsmaskinitnext and ->expmaskinitnext, and the
> > > latter two are set in rcu_cpu_starting() since commit
> > > 
> > > 	7ec99de36f40 ("rcu: Provide exact CPU-online tracking for RCU")
> > > 
> > > , and rcu_cpu_starting() only set the corresponding bit of _this_ cpu in
> > > a leaf node's ->qsmaskinitnext and ->expmaskinitnext. So looks like we
> > > are safe to remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() check, because a ever-running CPU
> > > must be a possible CPU, IIRC.
> > > 
> > > But this brings a side question, is the callsite of rcu_cpu_starting()
> > > is correct? Given rcu_cpu_starting() ignores the @cpu parameter and only
> > > set _this_ cpu's bit in a leaf node?
> > 
> > The calls from notify_cpu_starting() are called from the various
> > start_kernel_secondary(), secondary_start_kernel(), and similarly
> > named functions.  These are called on the incoming CPU early in that
> > CPU's execution.  The call from rcu_init() is correct until such time
> > as more than one CPU can be running at rcu_init() time.  And that
> > day might be coming, so please see the untested patch below.
> 
> Looks better than mine ;-)
> 
> But do we need to worry that we start rcu on each CPU twice, which may
> slow down the boot?

We only start a given CPU once.  The boot CPU at rcu_init() time, and
the rest at CPU-hotplug time.  Unless of course a CPU is later taken
offline, in which case we start it again when it comes back online.

							Thanx, Paul

> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > commit 1e84402587173d6d4da8645689f0e24c877b3269
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date:   Tue Dec 20 07:17:58 2016 -0800
> > 
> >     rcu: Make rcu_cpu_starting() use its "cpu" argument
> >     
> >     The rcu_cpu_starting() function uses this_cpu_ptr() to locate the
> >     incoming CPU's rcu_data structure.  This works for the boot CPU and for
> >     all CPUs onlined after rcu_init() executes (during very early boot).
> >     Currently, this is the full set of CPUs, so all is well.  But if
> >     anyone ever parallelizes boot before rcu_init() time, it will fail.
> >     This commit therefore substitutes the rcu_cpu_starting() function's
> >     this_cpu_pointer() for per_cpu_ptr(), future-proofing the code and
> >     (arguably) improving readability.
> >     
> >     Reported-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index b9d3c0e30935..083cb8a6299c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -4017,7 +4017,7 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> >  	struct rcu_state *rsp;
> >  
> >  	for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp) {
> > -		rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
> > +		rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
> >  		rnp = rdp->mynode;
> >  		mask = rdp->grpmask;
> >  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists