linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rcu 13/14] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1bDRmAv3135XLcn@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:54:30 +0000
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 13/14] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use
 call_rcu_flush()

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >
> > You guys might need to agree on the definition of "good" here.  Or maybe
> > understand the differences in your respective platforms' definitions of
> > "good".  ;-)
> >
> Indeed. Bad is when once per-millisecond infinitely :) At least in such use

To me once per-ms is really bad, and once per 20ms indefinitely is also not
ideal ;-). Just to give you a sense of why I feel this, I see the RCU thread
wake ups that periodically happen can disturb CPUIdle.

The act of queuing Callback + gp delay + rcu threads running is enough to
disrupt overlaps between CPUidle time and the gp delay. Further the idle
governor will refrain from entering deeper CPUidle states because it will see
timers queued in the near future to wake up the RCU grace-period kthreads.

> workload a can detect a power delta and power gain. Anyway, below is a new
> trace where i do not use "flush" variant for the kvfree_rcu():
> 
> <snip>
> 1. Home screen swipe:
>          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1792.767750: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1003 bl=10
>          rcuop/2-33      [002] d..1  1792.771717: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=934 bl=10
>          rcuop/3-40      [001] d..1  1794.811816: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1508 bl=11
>          rcuop/1-26      [003] d..1  1797.116382: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2127 bl=16
>          rcuop/4-48      [001] d..1  1797.124422: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=95 bl=10
>          rcuop/5-55      [002] d..1  1797.124731: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=143 bl=10
>          rcuop/6-62      [005] d..1  1798.911719: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=132 bl=10
>          rcuop/2-33      [002] d..1  1803.003966: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3797 bl=29
>          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1803.004707: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2969 bl=23
> 2. App launches:
>          rcuop/4-48      [005] d..1  1831.087612: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6141 bl=47
>          rcuop/7-69      [007] d..1  1831.095578: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5464 bl=42
>          rcuop/5-55      [004] d..1  1832.703571: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8461 bl=66
>          rcuop/0-15      [004] d..1  1833.731603: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2548 bl=19
>          rcuop/1-26      [006] d..1  1833.743691: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2567 bl=20
>          rcuop/2-33      [006] d..1  1833.744005: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2359 bl=18
>          rcuop/3-40      [006] d..1  1833.744286: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3681 bl=28
>          rcuop/4-48      [002] d..1  1838.079777: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10444 bl=81
>          rcuop/7-69      [001] d..1  1838.080375: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=12572 bl=98
>            <...>-62      [002] d..1  1838.080646: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=14135 bl=110
>          rcuop/6-62      [000] d..1  1838.087722: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10839 bl=84
>            <...>-62      [003] d..1  1839.227022: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1834 bl=14
>            <...>-26      [001] d..1  1839.963315: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5769 bl=45
>          rcuop/2-33      [001] d..1  1839.966485: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3789 bl=29
>            <...>-40      [001] d..1  1839.966596: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6425 bl=50
>          rcuop/2-33      [005] d..1  1840.541272: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=825 bl=10
>          rcuop/2-33      [005] d..1  1840.547724: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=44 bl=10
>          rcuop/2-33      [005] d..1  1841.075759: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=516 bl=10
>          rcuop/0-15      [002] d..1  1841.695716: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6312 bl=49
>          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1841.709714: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=39 bl=10
>          rcuop/5-55      [004] d..1  1843.112442: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=16007 bl=125
>          rcuop/5-55      [004] d..1  1843.115444: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=7901 bl=61
>          rcuop/6-62      [001] dn.1  1843.123983: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8427 bl=65
>          rcuop/6-62      [006] d..1  1843.412383: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=981 bl=10
>          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1844.659812: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1851 bl=14
>          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1844.667790: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=135 bl=10
> <snip>
> 
> it is much more better. But. As i wrote earlier there is a patch that i have submitted
> some time ago improving kvfree_rcu() batching:

Yes it seems much better than your last traces! I'd propose to drop this
patch because as you show, it effects not only yours but ChromeOS. It appears
kvfree_rcu() use of queue_rcu_work() is a perfect candidate for call_rcu()
batching because it is purely driven by memory pressure. And we have a
shrinker for lazy-RCU as well.

For non-kvfree uses, we can introduce a queue_rcu_work_flush() if need-be.

What do you think?

thanks,

 - Joel