[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221130214402.GV4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:44:02 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 12/16] percpu-refcount: Use call_rcu_hurry() for
atomic switch
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:43:44AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 10:13:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> >
> > Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build
> > their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option.
> > This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order to
> > batch callbacks. This means that a given RCU grace period covers more
> > callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing
> > the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which
> > can be a very good thing. This is not a subtle effect: In some important
> > use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%.
> >
> > This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload
> > callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot
> > parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.
> >
> > Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do
> > nothing but free memory. If the system is short on memory, a shrinker
> > will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness,
> > thus freeing their memory in short order. Similarly, the rcu_barrier()
> > function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked,
> > will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete
> > in a timely manner.
> >
> > However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option.
> > For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until
> > the newly queued callback is invoked. It would not be a good for
> > synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system.
> > Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_hurry() instead of
> > call_rcu(). The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_hurry() callback on a
> > given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that
> > CPU. After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks
> > might as well get full benefit from it.
> >
> > Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a
> > call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and
> > feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach
> > to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_hurry() for the few places
> > where laziness is inappropriate.
> >
> > And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one on the
> > percpu refcounter's "per-CPU to atomic switch" code path, which
> > uses RCU when switching to atomic mode. The enqueued callback
> > wakes up waiters waiting in the percpu_ref_switch_waitq. Allowing
> > this callback to be lazy would result in unacceptable slowdowns for
> > users of per-CPU refcounts, such as blk_pre_runtime_suspend().
> >
> > Therefore, make __percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic() use call_rcu_hurry()
> > in order to revert to the old behavior.
> >
> > [ paulmck: Apply s/call_rcu_flush/call_rcu_hurry/ feedback from Tejun Heo. ]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> > Cc: <linux-mm@...ck.org>
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
I applied both, thank you very much!
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists