Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:30:37 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rcu: only raise softirq when need |
| |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:10:55AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 06:11:55PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > >> I found something RCU_SOFTIRQ are called without do any thing. > >> (use function_graph to find it: > >> 1) | rcu_process_callbacks() { > >> 1) | __rcu_process_callbacks() { > >> 1) 0.634 us | rcu_process_gp_end(); > >> 1) 0.487 us | check_for_new_grace_period(); > >> 1) 2.672 us | } > >> 1) | __rcu_process_callbacks() { > >> 1) 0.633 us | rcu_process_gp_end(); > >> 1) 0.491 us | check_for_new_grace_period(); > >> 1) 2.672 us | } > >> ) > >> > >> This patch make RCU_SOFTIRQ raised when need. > > > > So this seems to have two effects: > > > > 1. Avoid checking for a quiescent state if RCU doesn't need one > > from this CPU. > > > > 2. Avoid RCU_SOFTIRQ if RCU did need a quiescent state from > > this CPU, and if rcu_check_callbacks() saw a quiescent state. > > This RCU_SOFTIRQ is not avoided. > > + if (rdp->qs_pending && rdp->passed_quiesc) { > + rdp->n_rp_report_qs++; > return 1; > } > > Old: raise RCU_SOFTIRQ when rdp->qs_pending is not zero > New: raise RCU_SOFTIRQ when rdp->qs_pending && rdp->passed_quiesc > > So the different effects only happen when this state: > rdp->qs_pending == 1 && rdp->passed_quiesc == 0, > But this state will be changed after next rcu_sched_qs() or families. > So it will not hang up.
You are quite correct. I clearly need to give myself a day to think about patches to RCU functionality before replying. On the other hand, I might have been just as confused after thinking on it, so airing my confusion immediately might well have been the optimal approach. ;-)
So this patch looks like it would work, so the next question is how much it helps and/or hurts.
> > Except that if rcu_check_callbacks() did see a quiescent state, then we > > -need- RCU_SOFTIRQ to propagate this up the tree. So I don't see how > > this patch helps, and unless I am missing something, it can result in > > grace-period hangs. (This CPU is the last one to pass through a > > quiescent state, and this call to rcu_check_callbacks() finds one, > > and we fail to report it up the tree.) > > > > Please note that there are other possible causes for empty calls to > > rcu_process_callbacks(): > > > > 1. RCU needs a call to force_quiescent_state(), but some other > > CPU beats us to it. We raise RCU_SOFTIRQ, but by the time > > we get there, our work is done. > > > > 2. RCU needs to check for CPU stalls, but some other CPU beats > > us to it. > > > > 3. RCU is idle, and this CPU needs another grace period, but > > some other CPU starts up a new grace period before our > > softirq gets started. > > These may happen, but I have not seen any empty call after patch applied.
Before the patch, what fraction of the calls were empty calls?
> > So I do not believe that this patch is worthwhile even if it does turn > > out to be safe. > > I accept that this patch is not worthwhile. > > Raising empty call is harmless, and it is a chance > to progress RCU or detect problems.
If you say "this patch has not been yet proven to be worthwhile" instead of "this patch is not worthwhile", I will agree with you. Here is a quick rundown of my thoughts on it, which cannot be considered to be fully formed:
1. It cannot improve real-time scheduling latency, since there can be RCU_SOFTIRQ actions that really do something. This patch therefore does not improve the worst-case code path (though it might -- or might not -- help the average path).
2. It seems to increase path length a bit, but I doubt that this is measurable, so not a valid objection.
3. It -might- improve throughput, but this would need to be proven. This is the motivation for my question about the fraction of empty calls above.
Kernels that force all softirqs to execute in process context (e.g., CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) are the most likely to see benefit from this patch, as a pair of context switches are saved in that case. Of course, CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is more about scheduling latency than maximum throughput.
4. It does complicate the code a bit, but could be refactored to reduce the complication. (I haven't thought this through, but my guess is that the initial check should be factored across the "if" statement.)
All that aside, I don't believe the priority of this patch is particularly high, although it did do a good job of showing that your understanding of the treercu implementation is increasing. Which is a very good thing!
Just out of curiosity, what is your test procedure?
Thanx, Paul
| |