| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZaAm4mVEf8bXnLEp@pc636>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:35:30 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency
Hello, Kalesh!
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Uladzislau,
> > >
> > > I've tried your patches (v3) on Android with 6.1.43 kernel.
> > >
> > > The test cycles 10 apps (including camera) sequentially for 100
> > > iterations.
> > >
> > > I've set rcu_normal to override the rcu_expedited in the boot
> > > parameters:
> > >
> > > adb shell cat /proc/cmdline | tr ' ' '\n' | grep rcu
> > >
> > > rcupdate.rcu_normal=1
> > > rcupdate.rcu_expedited=1
> > > rcu_nocbs=0-7
> > >
> > >
> > > The configurations are:
> > >
> > > A - echo 0 >/sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_normal_wake_from_gp
> > > B - echo 1 >/sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_normal_wake_from_gp
> > >
> > > Results:
> > >
> > > = APP LAUNCH TIME =
> > > delta (B-A) ratio(%)
> > > overall_app_launch_time(ms) -11399.00 -6.65
> > >
> > >
> > > == camera_launch_time
> > > type delta(B-A %) A_count B_count
> > > HOT -7.05 99 99
> > > COLD -6.33 1 1
> > >
> > >
>
> Hi Uladzislau,
>
> > If i interpret it correctly you also see that this series reduces
> > a launch time by 6/7% on your app set. Is that correct?
>
> Yes your understanding is correct.
>
> >
> > > === Function Latencies ===
> > >
> > > Tracing synchronize_rcu_expedited. Hit Ctrl-C to exit Tracing synchronize_rcu_expedited. Hit Ctrl-C to exit
> > >
> > > nsec : count distribution nsec : count distribution
> > > 0 -> 1 : 0 | | 0 -> 1 : 0 | |
> > > 2 -> 3 : 0 | | 2 -> 3 : 0 | |
> > > 4 -> 7 : 0 | | 4 -> 7 : 0 | |
> > > 8 -> 15 : 0 | | 8 -> 15 : 0 | |
> > > 16 -> 31 : 0 | | 16 -> 31 : 0 | |
> > > 32 -> 63 : 0 | | 32 -> 63 : 0 | |
> > > 64 -> 127 : 0 | | 64 -> 127 : 0 | |
> > > 128 -> 255 : 0 | | 128 -> 255 : 0 | |
> > > 256 -> 511 : 0 | | 256 -> 511 : 0 | |
> > > 512 -> 1023 : 0 | | 512 -> 1023 : 0 | |
> > > 1024 -> 2047 : 0 | | 1024 -> 2047 : 0 | |
> > > 2048 -> 4095 : 0 | | 2048 -> 4095 : 0 | |
> > > 4096 -> 8191 : 0 | | 4096 -> 8191 : 0 | |
> > > 8192 -> 16383 : 0 | | 8192 -> 16383 : 0 | |
> > > 16384 -> 32767 : 0 | | 16384 -> 32767 : 0 | |
> > > 32768 -> 65535 : 0 | | 32768 -> 65535 : 0 | |
> > > 65536 -> 131071 : 0 | | 65536 -> 131071 : 0 | |
> > > 131072 -> 262143 : 0 | | 131072 -> 262143 : 0 | |
> > > 262144 -> 524287 : 0 | | 262144 -> 524287 : 0 | |
> > > 524288 -> 1048575 : 0 | | 524288 -> 1048575 : 0 | |
> > > 1048576 -> 2097151 : 0 | | 1048576 -> 2097151 : 0 | |
> > > 2097152 -> 4194303 : 0 | | 2097152 -> 4194303 : 0 | |
> > > 4194304 -> 8388607 : 871 |** | 4194304 -> 8388607 : 1180 |**** |
> > > 8388608 -> 16777215 : 3204 |******** | 8388608 -> 16777215 : 7020 |************************* |
> > > 16777216 -> 33554431 : 15013 |****************************************| 16777216 -> 33554431 : 10952 |****************************************|
> > > Exiting trace of synchronize_rcu_expedited Exiting trace of synchronize_rcu_expedited
> > >
> > >
> > > Tracing synchronize_rcu. Hit Ctrl-C to exit Tracing synchronize_rcu. Hit Ctrl-C to exit
> > >
> > > nsec : count distribution nsec : count distribution
> > > 0 -> 1 : 0 | | 0 -> 1 : 0 | |
> > > 2 -> 3 : 0 | | 2 -> 3 : 0 | |
> > > 4 -> 7 : 0 | | 4 -> 7 : 0 | |
> > > 8 -> 15 : 0 | | 8 -> 15 : 0 | |
> > > 16 -> 31 : 0 | | 16 -> 31 : 0 | |
> > > 32 -> 63 : 0 | | 32 -> 63 : 0 | |
> > > 64 -> 127 : 0 | | 64 -> 127 : 0 | |
> > > 128 -> 255 : 0 | | 128 -> 255 : 0 | |
> > > 256 -> 511 : 0 | | 256 -> 511 : 0 | |
> > > 512 -> 1023 : 0 | | 512 -> 1023 : 0 | |
> > > 1024 -> 2047 : 0 | | 1024 -> 2047 : 0 | |
> > > 2048 -> 4095 : 0 | | 2048 -> 4095 : 0 | |
> > > 4096 -> 8191 : 0 | | 4096 -> 8191 : 0 | |
> > > 8192 -> 16383 : 0 | | 8192 -> 16383 : 0 | |
> > > 16384 -> 32767 : 0 | | 16384 -> 32767 : 0 | |
> > > 32768 -> 65535 : 0 | | 32768 -> 65535 : 0 | |
> > > 65536 -> 131071 : 0 | | 65536 -> 131071 : 0 | |
> > > 131072 -> 262143 : 0 | | 131072 -> 262143 : 0 | |
> > > 262144 -> 524287 : 0 | | 262144 -> 524287 : 0 | |
> > > 524288 -> 1048575 : 0 | | 524288 -> 1048575 : 0 | |
> > > 1048576 -> 2097151 : 0 | | 1048576 -> 2097151 : 0 | |
> > > 2097152 -> 4194303 : 0 | | 2097152 -> 4194303 : 0 | |
> > > 4194304 -> 8388607 : 861 |** | 4194304 -> 8388607 : 1136 |**** |
> > > 8388608 -> 16777215 : 3111 |******** | 8388608 -> 16777215 : 6320 |************************ |
> > > 16777216 -> 33554431 : 13901 |****************************************| 16777216 -> 33554431 : 10484 |****************************************|
> > > Exiting trace of synchronize_rcu Exiting trace of synchronize_rcu
> > >
> > Who is B and who is A?
>
> Left is A (rcu_normal_wake_from_gp=0) and right is B
> (rcu_normal_wake_from_gp=1)
> >
> > >
> > > Interestingly I tried the same experiment without rcu_normal=1 (leaving rcu_expedited=1):
> > >
> > > adb shell cat /proc/cmdline | tr ' ' '\n' | grep rcu
> > > rcupdate.rcu_expedited=1
> > > rcu_nocbs=0-7
> > >
> > > In this case I also saw the -6 to -7% decrease in the app launch times
> > > but I don't have a good explanation why that would be? (The fucntion
> > > latency histograms in this case didn't show any significant difference).
> > > Do you have any insight why this may happen?
> > >
> > When rcu_expedited=1 is set and rcu_normal=0 is disabled. The
> > synchronize_rcu() call is converted into synchronize_rcu_expidited():
> >
> > <snip>
> > void synchronize_rcu(void)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> >
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
> > lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
> > "Illegal synchronize_rcu() in RCU read-side critical section");
> > if (!rcu_blocking_is_gp()) {
> > if (rcu_gp_is_expedited())
> > synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> > else
> > synchronize_rcu_normal();
> > return;
> > }
> > ...
> > <snip>
> >
> > rcu_gp_is_expidited() is true, so invoke "expedited" version.
> >
> > I see some concerns in preferring an expedited version as a global
> > replacement. First of all it is related to latency sensitive workloads
> > because in order to expedite a grace period it sends out IPIs on all
> > online CPUs to force them to report a quiescent-state asap. I have not
> > investigated yet how it affects such workloads.
> >
> > Therefore, in your case, you also see a performance boost of your app sets.
>
> IIUC the patch shouldn't affect the case? The only difference in A vs
> B is rcu_normal_wake_from_gp (both have rcu_expedited=1).
>
Right. This patch does not touch "expedited" version at all.
Appreciate for test results and looking at!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists