[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200831180116.32690-23-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:01:15 -0700
From: paulmck@...nel.org
To: rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
urezki@...il.com, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/24] rcu/segcblist: Prevent useless GP start if no CBs to accelerate
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
The rcu_segcblist_accelerate() function returns true iff it is necessary
to request another grace period. A tracing session showed that this
function unnecessarily requests grace periods.
For exmaple, consider the following sequence of events:
1. Callbacks are queued only on the NEXT segment of CPU A's callback list.
2. CPU A runs RCU_SOFTIRQ, accelerating these callbacks from NEXT to WAIT.
3. Thus rcu_segcblist_accelerate() returns true, requesting grace period N.
4. RCU's grace-period kthread wakes up on CPU B and starts grace period N.
4. CPU A notices the new grace period and invokes RCU_SOFTIRQ.
5. CPU A's RCU_SOFTIRQ again invokes rcu_segcblist_accelerate(), but
there are no new callbacks. However, rcu_segcblist_accelerate()
nevertheless (uselessly) requests a new grace period N+1.
This extra grace period results in additional lock contention and also
additional wakeups, all for no good reason.
This commit therefore adds a check to rcu_segcblist_accelerate() that
prevents the return of true when there are no new callbacks.
This change reduces the number of grace periods (GPs) and wakeups in each
of eleven five-second rcutorture runs as follows:
+----+-------------------+-------------------+
| # | Number of GPs | Number of Wakeups |
+====+=========+=========+=========+=========+
| 1 | With | Without | With | Without |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2 | 75 | 89 | 113 | 119 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 3 | 62 | 91 | 105 | 123 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 4 | 60 | 79 | 98 | 110 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 5 | 63 | 79 | 99 | 112 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 6 | 57 | 89 | 96 | 123 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 7 | 64 | 85 | 97 | 118 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 8 | 58 | 83 | 98 | 113 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 9 | 57 | 77 | 89 | 104 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 10 | 66 | 82 | 98 | 119 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 11 | 52 | 82 | 83 | 117 |
+----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
The reduction in the number of wakeups ranges from 5% to 40%.
Cc: urezki@...il.com
[ paulmck: Rework commit log and comment. ]
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
index 9a0f661..2d2a6b6b9 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
@@ -475,8 +475,16 @@ bool rcu_segcblist_accelerate(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, unsigned long seq)
* Also advance to the oldest segment of callbacks whose
* ->gp_seq[] completion is at or after that passed in via "seq",
* skipping any empty segments.
+ *
+ * Note that segment "i" (and any lower-numbered segments
+ * containing older callbacks) will be unaffected, and their
+ * grace-period numbers remain unchanged. For example, if i ==
+ * WAIT_TAIL, then neither WAIT_TAIL nor DONE_TAIL will be touched.
+ * Instead, the CBs in NEXT_TAIL will be merged with those in
+ * NEXT_READY_TAIL and the grace-period number of NEXT_READY_TAIL
+ * would be updated. NEXT_TAIL would then be empty.
*/
- if (++i >= RCU_NEXT_TAIL)
+ if (rcu_segcblist_restempty(rsclp, i) || ++i >= RCU_NEXT_TAIL)
return false;
/*
--
2.9.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists