Message-ID: <CANn89iK7cj+Msz7=+nzmbC=BbaA9Rpp4e+u0d-xRuSr1K-TbPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:05:50 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: use smp_call_function_many() in arch_freq_prepare_all()

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:36 AM Rafael J. Wysocki
<rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/11/2022 2:17 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > Opening /proc/cpuinfo can have a big latency on hosts with many cpus,
> > mostly because it is essentially doing:
> >
> >     for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >      smp_call_function_single(cpu, aperfmperf_snapshot_khz, ...)
> >
> > smp_call_function_single() is reusing a common csd, meaning that
> > each invocation needs to wait for completion of the prior one.
> >
> > Paul recent patches have lowered number of cpus receiving the IPI,
> > but there are still cases where the latency of the above loop can
> > reach 10 ms, then an extra msleep(10) is performed, for a total of 20ms.
> >
> > Using smp_call_function_many() allows for full parallelism,
> > and latency is down to ~80 usec, on a host with 256 cpus.
>
> This looks reasonable to me.
>
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> or if you want me to pick it up, please resend the patch with a CC to
> linux-pm@...r.kernel.org.

I do not know what x86 maintainers prefer ?

Let them give their advice here, thanks !

>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> > Cc: <x86@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> > index 22911deacb6e441ad60ddb57190ef3772afb3cf0..a305310ceb44784a0ad9be7c196061d98fa1adbc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> > @@ -67,7 +67,8 @@ static void aperfmperf_snapshot_khz(void *dummy)
> >       atomic_set_release(&s->scfpending, 0);
> >   }
> >
> > -static bool aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(int cpu, ktime_t now, bool wait)
> > +static bool aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(int cpu, ktime_t now, bool wait,
> > +                                 struct cpumask *mask)
> >   {
> >       s64 time_delta = ktime_ms_delta(now, per_cpu(samples.time, cpu));
> >       struct aperfmperf_sample *s = per_cpu_ptr(&samples, cpu);
> > @@ -76,9 +77,13 @@ static bool aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(int cpu, ktime_t now, bool wait)
> >       if (time_delta < APERFMPERF_CACHE_THRESHOLD_MS)
> >               return true;
> >
> > -     if (!atomic_xchg(&s->scfpending, 1) || wait)
> > -             smp_call_function_single(cpu, aperfmperf_snapshot_khz, NULL, wait);
> > -
> > +     if (!atomic_xchg(&s->scfpending, 1) || wait) {
> > +             if (mask)
> > +                     __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mask);
> > +             else
> > +                     smp_call_function_single(cpu, aperfmperf_snapshot_khz,
> > +                                              NULL, wait);
> > +     }
> >       /* Return false if the previous iteration was too long ago. */
> >       return time_delta <= APERFMPERF_STALE_THRESHOLD_MS;
> >   }
> > @@ -97,13 +102,14 @@ unsigned int aperfmperf_get_khz(int cpu)
> >       if (rcu_is_idle_cpu(cpu))
> >               return 0; /* Idle CPUs are completely uninteresting. */
> >
> > -     aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, ktime_get(), true);
> > +     aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, ktime_get(), true, NULL);
> >       return per_cpu(samples.khz, cpu);
> >   }
> >
> >   void arch_freq_prepare_all(void)
> >   {
> >       ktime_t now = ktime_get();
> > +     cpumask_var_t mask;
> >       bool wait = false;
> >       int cpu;
> >
> > @@ -113,17 +119,25 @@ void arch_freq_prepare_all(void)
> >       if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF))
> >               return;
> >
> > +     if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&mask, GFP_KERNEL))
> > +             return;
> > +
> > +     cpus_read_lock();
> >       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> >               if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_MISC))
> >                       continue;
> >               if (rcu_is_idle_cpu(cpu))
> >                       continue; /* Idle CPUs are completely uninteresting. */
> > -             if (!aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, now, false))
> > +             if (!aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, now, false, mask))
> >                       wait = true;
> >       }
> >
> > -     if (wait)
> > -             msleep(APERFMPERF_REFRESH_DELAY_MS);
> > +     preempt_disable();
> > +     smp_call_function_many(mask, aperfmperf_snapshot_khz, NULL, wait);
> > +     preempt_enable();
> > +     cpus_read_unlock();
> > +
> > +     free_cpumask_var(mask);
> >   }
> >
> >   unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
> > @@ -139,7 +153,7 @@ unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
> >       if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_MISC))
> >               return 0;
> >
> > -     if (aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, ktime_get(), true))
> > +     if (aperfmperf_snapshot_cpu(cpu, ktime_get(), true, NULL))
> >               return per_cpu(samples.khz, cpu);
> >
> >       msleep(APERFMPERF_REFRESH_DELAY_MS);
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists