Message-ID: <20220710154759.GG1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Sun, 10 Jul 2022 08:47:59 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rushikesh.s.kadam@...el.com, urezki@...il.com,
        neeraj.iitr10@...il.com, frederic@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        vineeth@...byteword.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Implement call_rcu_lazy() and miscellaneous fixes

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 01:38:01AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 03:45:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 04:17:30AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 08:12:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:50:53PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > > Please find the next improved version of call_rcu_lazy() attached.  The main
> > > > > difference between the previous version is that it is now using bypass lists,
> > > > > and thus handling rcu_barrier() and hotplug situations, with some small changes
> > > > > to those parts.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I also don't see the TREE07 RCU stall from v1 anymore.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the v1, we some numbers below (testing on v2 is in progress). Rushikesh,
> > > > > feel free to pull these patches into your tree. Just to note, you will also
> > > > > need to pull the call_rcu_lazy() user patches from v1. I have dropped in this
> > > > > series, just to make the series focus on the feature code first.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Following are power savings we see on top of RCU_NOCB_CPU on an Intel platform.
> > > > > The observation is that due to a 'trickle down' effect of RCU callbacks, the
> > > > > system is very lightly loaded but constantly running few RCU callbacks very
> > > > > often. This confuses the power management hardware that the system is active,
> > > > > when it is in fact idle.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example, when ChromeOS screen is off and user is not doing anything on the
> > > > > system, we can see big power savings.
> > > > > Before:
> > > > > Pk%pc10 = 72.13
> > > > > PkgWatt = 0.58
> > > > > CorWatt = 0.04
> > > > > 
> > > > > After:
> > > > > Pk%pc10 = 81.28
> > > > > PkgWatt = 0.41
> > > > > CorWatt = 0.03
> > > > 
> > > > So not quite 30% savings in power at the package level?  Not bad at all!
> > > 
> > > Yes this is the package residency amount, not the amount of power. This % is
> > > not power.
> > 
> > So what exactly is PkgWatt, then?  If you can say.  That is where I was
> > getting the 30% from.
> 
> Its the total package power (SoC power) - so like not just the CPU but also
> the interconnect, other controllers and other blocks in there.
> 
> This output is from the turbostat program and the number is mentioned in the
> manpage:
> "PkgWatt Watts consumed by the whole package."
> https://manpages.debian.org/testing/linux-cpupower/turbostat.8.en.html

Are we back to about a 30% savings in power at the package level?  ;-)

Either way, please quantify your "big power savings" by calculating and
stating a percentage decrease.

> > > > > Further, when ChromeOS screen is ON but system is idle or lightly loaded, we
> > > > > can see that the display pipeline is constantly doing RCU callback queuing due
> > > > > to open/close of file descriptors associated with graphics buffers. This is
> > > > > attributed to the file_free_rcu() path which this patch series also touches.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch series adds a simple but effective, and lockless implementation of
> > > > > RCU callback batching. On memory pressure, timeout or queue growing too big, we
> > > > > initiate a flush of one or more per-CPU lists.
> > > > 
> > > > It is no longer lockless, correct?  Or am I missing something subtle?
> > > > 
> > > > Full disclosure: I don't see a whole lot of benefit to its being lockless.
> > > > But truth in advertising!  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Yes, you are right. Maybe a better way I could put it is it is "lock
> > > contention less" :D
> > 
> > Yes, "reduced lock contention" would be a good phrase.  As long as you
> > carefully indicate exactly what scenario with greater lock contention
> > you are comparing to.
> > 
> > But aren't you acquiring the bypass lock at about the same rate as it
> > would be aquired without laziness?  What am I missing here?
> 
> You are right, why not I just drop the locking phrases from the summary.
> Anyway the main win from this work is not related to locking.

Sounds good!

							Thanx, Paul

> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > > > Similar results can be achieved by increasing jiffies_till_first_fqs, however
> > > > > that also has the effect of slowing down RCU. Especially I saw huge slow down
> > > > > of function graph tracer when increasing that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > One drawback of this series is, if another frequent RCU callback creeps up in
> > > > > the future, that's not lazy, then that will again hurt the power. However, I
> > > > > believe identifying and fixing those is a more reasonable approach than slowing
> > > > > RCU down for the whole system.
> > > > 
> > > > Very good!  I have you down as the official call_rcu_lazy() whack-a-mole
> > > > developer.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > :-D
> > > 
> > > thanks,
> > > 
> > >  - Joel
> > > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists