Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 6/7] rcu: Drive quiescent-state-forcingdelay from HZ
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Sat Apr 13 2013 - 18:09:59 EST
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:53:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:34:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:18:00AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:38:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:54:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:19:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Systems with HZ=100 can have slow bootup times due to the default
> > > > > > three-jiffy delays between quiescent-state forcing attempts. This
> > > > > > commit therefore auto-tunes the RCU_JIFFIES_TILL_FORCE_QS value based
> > > > > > on the value of HZ. However, this would break very large systems that
> > > > > > require more time between quiescent-state forcing attempts. This
> > > > > > commit therefore also ups the default delay by one jiffy for each
> > > > > > 256 CPUs that might be on the system (based off of nr_cpu_ids at
> > > > > > runtime, -not- NR_CPUS at build time).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reported-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Something seems very wrong if RCU regularly hits the fqs code during
> > > > > boot; feels like there's some more straightforward solution we're
> > > > > missing. What causes these CPUs to fall under RCU's scrutiny during
> > > > > boot yet not actually hit the RCU codepaths naturally?
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that they are running HZ=100, so that RCU will often
> > > > take 30-60 milliseconds per grace period. At that point, you only
> > > > need 16-30 grace periods to chew up a full second, so it is not all
> > > > that hard to eat up the additional 8-12 seconds of boot time that
> > > > they were seeing. IIRC, UP boot was costing them 4 seconds.
> > > >
> > > > For HZ=1000, this would translate to 800ms to 1.2s, which is nowhere
> > > > near as annoying.
> > >
> > > That raises two questions, though. First, who calls synchronize_rcu()
> > > repeatedly during boot, and could they call call_rcu() instead to avoid
> > > blocking for an RCU grace period? Second, why does RCU need 3-6 jiffies
> > > to resolve a grace period during boot? That suggests that RCU doesn't
> > > actually resolve a grace period until the force-quiescent-state
> > > machinery kicks in, meaning that the normal quiescent-state mechanism
> > > didn't work.
> > Indeed, converting synchronize_rcu() to call_rcu() might also be
> > helpful. The reason that RCU often does not resolve grace periods until
> > force_quiescent_state() is that it is often the case during boot that
> > all but one CPU is idle. RCU tries hard to avoid waking up idle CPUs,
> > so it must scan them. Scanning is relatively expensive, so there is
> > reason to wait.
> How are those CPUs going idle without first telling RCU that they're
> quiesced? Seems like, during boot at least, you want RCU to use its
> idle==quiesced logic to proactively note continuously-quiescent states.
> Ideally, you should not hit the FQS code at all during boot.
FQS is RCU's idle==quiesced logic. ;-)
In theory, RCU could add logic at idle entry to report a quiescent state,
in fact CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ used to do exactly that. In practice,
this is not good for energy efficiency at runtime for a goodly number
of workloads, which is why CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ now relies on callback
numbering and FQS.
I understand that at boot time, energy efficiency is best served by
making boot go faster, but that means that something has to tell RCU
when boot is complete.
> > One thing that could be done would be to scan immediately during boot,
> > and then back off once boot has completed. Of course, RCU has no idea
> > when boot has completed, but one way to get this effect is to boot
> > with rcutree.jiffies_till_first_fqs=0, and then use sysfs to set it
> > to 3 once boot has completed.
> What do you mean by "boot has completed" here? The kernel's early
> initialization, the kernel's initialization up to running /sbin/init, or
> userspace initialization up through supporting user login?
That is exactly the question. After all, if RCU is going to do something
special during boot, it needs to know when boot ends. People normally
count boot as up to user login, but RCU currently has no way to know
when this is, at least as far as I know. Which is why I suggested that
something tell RCU via sysfs.
Regardless, for the usual definition of "boot is complete", user space has
to decide when boot is complete. The kernel is out of the loop early on.
> In any case, I don't think it makes sense to do this with FQS.
OK, let's go through the possibilities I can imagine at the moment:
1. Force the scheduling-clock interrupt to remain on during
boot. This way, each CPU could tell RCU of its idle/non-idle
state. Of course, something then needs to tell the kernel
when boot is over so that it can go back to energy-efficient
2. Set rcutree.jiffies_till_first_fqs=0 at boot time, then when
boot is complete, set it to 3 via sysfs, or to some magic number
telling RCU to recompute the default. This has the virtue of
allowing different userspaces to handle this differently.
3. Take a half-step by having RCU register a callback during the
latest phase of kernel-visible boot. I am under the impression
that this is a relatively small fraction of boot, so it would
4. Make CPUs announce quiescence on each entry to idle. This
covers the transition to idle, but when a given CPU stays idle
for more than one grace period, RCU has to do something to verify
that the CPU remains idle. Right now, that is FQS's job --
it cycles through the dyntick-idle structures of all CPUs that
have not already announced quiescence.
5. Make CPUs IPI RCU's grace-period kthread on each transition
to and from idle. I might be missing something, but given the
cost and disuptiveness of IPIs, this does not seem to me to be
a strategy to win.
6. IPI the CPUs to see if they are still idle. This would defeat
energy efficiency. Of course, RCU could take this approach
only during boot, but it is cheaper and faster to just check
each CPU's rcu_dynticks structure -- which is what FQS does.
7. Treat all normal grace periods as expedited grace periods, but
only during boot. It is fairly easy for RCU to do this, but
again, something has to tell RCU when boot is complete.
8. Your idea here. Plus more of mine as I remember them. ;-)
So, what am I missing?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/