[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181015153348.GB8952@tardis>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 23:33:48 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Use cpus_read_lock() while looking at
cpu_online_mask
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 05:09:03PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-10-15 23:07:15 [+0800], Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi, Sebastian
> Hi Boqun,
>
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2018-10-13 06:48:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My concern would be that it would queue it by default for the current
> > > > CPU, which would serialize the processing, losing the concurrency of
> > > > grace-period initialization. But that was a long time ago, and perhaps
> > > > workqueues have changed.
> > >
> > > but the code here is always using the first CPU of a NUMA node or did I
> > > miss something?
> > >
> >
> > The thing is the original way is to pick one CPU for a *RCU* node to
> > run the grace-period work, but with your proposal, if a RCU node is
> > smaller than a NUMA node (having fewer CPUs), we could end up having two
> > grace-period works running on one CPU. I think that's Paul's concern.
>
> Ah. Okay. From what I observed, the RCU nodes and NUMA nodes were 1:1
> here. Noted.
Ok, in that case, there should be no significant performance difference.
> Given that I can enqueue a work item on an offlined CPU I don't see why
> commit fcc6354365015 ("rcu: Make expedited GPs handle CPU 0 being
> offline") should make a difference. Any objections to just revert it?
Well, that commit is trying to avoid queue a work on an offlined CPU,
because according to workqueue API, it's the users' responsibility to
make sure the CPU is online when a work item enqueued. So there is a
difference ;-)
But I don't have any objection to revert it with your proposal, since
yours is more simple and straight-forward, and doesn't perform worse if
NUMA nodes and RCU nodes have one-to-one corresponding.
Besides, I think even if we observe some performance difference in the
future, the best way to solve that is to make workqueue have a more
fine-grained affine group than a NUMA node.
Regards,
Boqun
>
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
>
> Sebastian
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists