Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:40:00 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rushikesh S Kadam <rushikesh.s.kadam@...el.com>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
        Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 resend 4/6] fs: Move call_rcu() to call_rcu_lazy() in
 some paths



On 8/19/2022 2:14 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/19/2022 1:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:30:49PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> On 8/18/2022 10:45 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/2022 10:35 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:21:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 7:05 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 1:23 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Sorry, adding back the CC list]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 11:45 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
>>>>>>>> <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is required to prevent callbacks triggering RCU machinery too
>>>>>>>>> quickly and too often, which adds more power to the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When testing, we found that these paths were invoked often when the
>>>>>>>>> system is not doing anything (screen is ON but otherwise idle).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I am seeing a slow down in ChromeOS boot performance
>>>>>>>> after applying this particular patch. It is the first time I could
>>>>>>>> test ChromeOS boot times with the series since it was hard to find a
>>>>>>>> ChromeOS device that runs the upstream kernel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, Vlad, Neeraj, do you guys also see slower boot times with this
>>>>>>>> patch? I wonder if the issue is with wake up interaction with the nocb
>>>>>>>> GP threads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We ought to disable lazy RCU during boot since it would have little
>>>>>>>> benefit anyway. But I am also concerned about some deeper problem I
>>>>>>>> did not catch before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll look into tracing the fs paths to see if I can narrow down what's
>>>>>>>> causing it. Will also try a newer kernel, I am currently testing on
>>>>>>>> 5.19-rc4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I got somewhere with this. It looks like queuing CBs as lazy CBs
>>>>>>> instead of normal CBs, are triggering expedited stalls during the boot
>>>>>>> process:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   39.949198] rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected expedited stalls on
>>>>>>> CPUs/tasks: { } 28 jiffies s: 69 root: 0x0/.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No idea how/why lazy RCU CBs would be related to expedited GP issues,
>>>>>>> but maybe something hangs and causes that side-effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> initcall_debug did not help, as it seems initcalls all work fine, and
>>>>>>> then 8 seconds after the boot, it starts slowing down a lot, followed
>>>>>>> by the RCU stall messages. As a next step I'll enable ftrace during
>>>>>>> the boot to see if I can get more insight. But I believe, its not the
>>>>>>> FS layer, the FS layer just triggers lazy CBs, but there is something
>>>>>>> wrong with the core lazy-RCU work itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This kernel is 5.19-rc4. I'll also try to rebase ChromeOS on more
>>>>>>> recent kernels and debug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More digging, thanks to trace_event= boot option , I find that the
>>>>>> boot process does have some synchronous waits, and though these are
>>>>>> "non-lazy", for some reason the lazy CBs that were previously queued
>>>>>> are making them wait for the *full* lazy duration. Which points to a
>>>>>> likely bug in the lazy RCU logic. These synchronous CBs should never
>>>>>> be waiting like the lazy ones:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => trace_dump_stack
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => __wait_rcu_gp
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => synchronize_rcu
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => selinux_netcache_avc_callback
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => avc_ss_reset
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => sel_write_enforce
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => vfs_write
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => ksys_write
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => do_syscall_64
>>>>>> [   17.715904]  => entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm tired so I'll resume the debug later.
>>>>>
>>>>> At times like this, I often pull the suspect code into userspace and
>>>>> run it through its paces.  In this case, a bunch of call_rcu_lazy()
>>>>> invocations into an empty bypass list, followed by a call_rcu()
>>>>> invocation, then a check to make sure that the bypass list is no longer
>>>>> lazy.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for this great debug idea, I will look into it.
>>>
>>> It seems to be a subtle issue when a large number of callbacks are
>>> queued trigging the lock-contention code, which happens at boot. It
>>> appears the non-lazy ones and lazy ones collide, so you have the lazy
>>> timer which wins, and then the regular bypass lock-contention timer is
>>> not allowed to do its thing. Due to this, the rcuog thread wakes up much
>>> later than a jiffie.
>>
>> Good show, and glad you found it!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>> Things are much better with the following change. However, this brings
>>> me to a question about lock-contention based or any deferring and boot time.
>>>
>>> If you have a path like selinux doing a synchronize_rcu(), shouldn't we
>>> skip the jiffie waiting for the bypass timer? Otherwise things
>>> synchronously waiting will slow down more than usual. Maybe bypassing
>>> should not be done for any case until boot up is done. I'm curious to
>>> see if that improves boot time.
>>
>> Why not simply disable laziness at boot time and enable it only after
>> booting is complete?  The exiting rcupdate.rcu_normal_after_boot kernel
>> boot parameter uses a similar scheme.
> 
> That sounds like the right thing to good, but unfortunately it wont help
> this problem. The boot time issue happens after init has started. So the
> OS is still "booting" even though the kernel has.
> 
> Also the problem can happen after boot as well, like if RCU
> lazy/non-lazy callbacks come back to back quickly, or so.
> 
> But yes nonetheless, I can see the value of disabling it till the
> in-kernel boot completets.
> 
>>> @@ -580,7 +585,11 @@ static void __call_rcu_nocb_wake(struct rcu_data
>>> *rdp, bool was_alldone,
>>>         len = rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist);
>>>         bypass_len = rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
>>>         lazy_len = rcu_cblist_n_lazy_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
>>> -       if (was_alldone) {
>>> +
>>> +       // If we are in lazy-mode, we still need to do a wake up even if
>>> +       // all CBs were previously done. Otherwise the GP thread will
>>> +       // wait for the full lazy duration.
>>> +       if (was_alldone || (READ_ONCE(rdp->nocb_defer_wakeup) ==
>>> RCU_NOCB_WAKE_LAZY)) {
>>>                 rdp->qlen_last_fqs_check = len;
>>>                 // Only lazy CBs in bypass list
>>>                 if (lazy_len && bypass_len == lazy_len) {
>>
>> And this change looks plausible, though as always, the system's opinion
>> carries much more weight than does mine.
> 
> Sounds good, thanks, I am testing it more. Will update it for v4.

We could also do the following, I tested it and it fixes it. It seems more maintainable
and less fragile, but it comes at a slightly higher (but likely negligible) cost. If there
are lazy CBs queued, and any non-lazy one comes, then the first non-lazy one is not
considered to be added to the bypass list but hopefully that's Ok with you. Later non-lazy
ones will be added to the bypass.

@@ -484,9 +490,17 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_try_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head
*rhp,
        // since we are kick-starting RCU GP processing anyway for the non-lazy
        // one, we can just reuse that GP for the already queued-up lazy ones.
        if ((rdp->nocb_nobypass_count < nocb_nobypass_lim_per_jiffy && !lazy) ||
-           (lazy && n_lazy_cbs >= qhimark)) {
+           (!lazy && n_lazy_cbs) ||
+           (lazy  && n_lazy_cbs >= qhimark)) {
                rcu_nocb_lock(rdp);
-               *was_alldone = !rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist);
+
+               // This variable helps decide if a wakeup of the rcuog thread
+               // is needed. It is passed to __call_rcu_nocb_wake() by the
+               // caller.  If only lazy CBs were previously queued and this one
+               // is non-lazy, make sure the caller does a wake up.
+               *was_alldone = !rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist) ||
+                               (!lazy && n_lazy_cbs);
+
                if (*was_alldone)
                        trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
                                            lazy ? TPS("FirstLazyQ") : TPS("FirstQ"));
@@ -500,7 +514,8 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_try_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head
*rhp,
        if ((ncbs && j != READ_ONCE(rdp->nocb_bypass_first)) || ncbs >= qhimark) {
                rcu_nocb_lock(rdp);
                if (!rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(rdp, rhp, j, lazy, false)) {
-                       *was_alldone = !rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist);
+                       *was_alldone = !rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist) ||
+                               (!lazy && n_lazy_cbs);
                        if (*was_alldone)
                                trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
                                                    lazy ? TPS("FirstLazyQ") : TPS("FirstQ"));

Powered by blists - more mailing lists