[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVFCs5MpynXgXnWY@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 15:25:07 -0600
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Mario <jmario@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Jug <sejug@...hat.com>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cgroup/rstat: Reduce cpu_lock hold time in
cgroup_rstat_flush_locked()
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 11:13:01PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> When cgroup_rstat_updated() isn't being called concurrently with
> cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(), its run time is pretty short. When
> both are called concurrently, the cgroup_rstat_updated() run time
> can spike to a pretty high value due to high cpu_lock hold time in
> cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(). This can be problematic if the task calling
> cgroup_rstat_updated() is a realtime task running on an isolated CPU
> with a strict latency requirement. The cgroup_rstat_updated() call can
> happen when there is a page fault even though the task is running in
> user space most of the time.
>
> The percpu cpu_lock is used to protect the update tree -
> updated_next and updated_children. This protection is only needed when
> cgroup_rstat_cpu_pop_updated() is being called. The subsequent flushing
> operation which can take a much longer time does not need that protection
> as it is already protected by cgroup_rstat_lock.
>
> To reduce the cpu_lock hold time, we need to perform all the
> cgroup_rstat_cpu_pop_updated() calls up front with the lock
> released afterward before doing any flushing. This patch adds a new
> cgroup_rstat_updated_list() function to return a singly linked list of
> cgroups to be flushed.
>
> Some instrumentation code are added to measure the cpu_lock hold time
> right after lock acquisition to after releasing the lock. Parallel
> kernel build on a 2-socket x86-64 server is used as the benchmarking
> tool for measuring the lock hold time.
>
> The maximum cpu_lock hold time before and after the patch are 100us and
> 29us respectively. So the worst case time is reduced to about 30% of
> the original. However, there may be some OS or hardware noises like NMI
> or SMI in the test system that can worsen the worst case value. Those
> noises are usually tuned out in a real production environment to get
> a better result.
>
> OTOH, the lock hold time frequency distribution should give a better
> idea of the performance benefit of the patch. Below were the frequency
> distribution before and after the patch:
>
> Hold time Before patch After patch
> --------- ------------ -----------
> 0-01 us 804,139 13,738,708
> 01-05 us 9,772,767 1,177,194
> 05-10 us 4,595,028 4,984
> 10-15 us 303,481 3,562
> 15-20 us 78,971 1,314
> 20-25 us 24,583 18
> 25-30 us 6,908 12
> 30-40 us 8,015
> 40-50 us 2,192
> 50-60 us 316
> 60-70 us 43
> 70-80 us 7
> 80-90 us 2
> >90 us 3
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Applied this one to cgroup/for-6.8. Will wait for the updated version for
the other patches.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists