Re: [PATCH v2] rcu/tree: nocb: Avoid raising softirq when there are ready to execute CBs

[Neeraj Upadhyay]

On 10/8/2020 4:04 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 10:11:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > During testing, I see it is possible that rcu_pending() returns 1 when
> > offloaded callbacks are ready to execute thus raising the RCU softirq.
> >
> > However, softirq does not execute offloaded callbacks. They are executed in a
> > kthread which is awakened independent of the softirq.
> >
> > This commit therefore avoids raising the softirq in the first place. That's
> > probably a good thing considering that the purpose of callback offloading is to
> > reduce softirq activity.
> >
> > Passed 30 minute tests of TREE01 through TREE09 each.
> >
> > On TREE08, I notice that there is atmost 150us from when the softirq was
> > NOT raised when ready cbs were present, to when the ready callbacks were
> > invoked by the rcuop thread. This also further confirms that there is no
> > need to raise the softirq for ready cbs in the first place.
> >
> > Cc: neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Looks good, applied, thank you!  I reworked things a bit based on
> previous patches and to more precisely capture why this patch does
> not cause additional problems.  Please let me know if I messed
> anything up.
>
> 							Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit 33847a34a2d261354a79b4a24d9d37222e8ec888
> Author: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Wed Oct 7 13:50:36 2020 -0700
>
>      rcu/tree: nocb: Avoid raising softirq for offloaded ready-to-execute CBs
>      
>      Testing showed that rcu_pending() can return 1 when offloaded callbacks
>      are ready to execute.  This invokes RCU core processing, for example,
>      by raising RCU_SOFTIRQ, eventually resulting in a call to rcu_core().
>      However, rcu_core() explicitly avoids in any way manipulating offloaded
>      callbacks, which are instead handled by the rcuog and rcuoc kthreads,
>      which work independently of rcu_core().
>      
>      One exception to this independence is that rcu_core() invokes
>      do_nocb_deferred_wakeup(), however, rcu_pending() also checks
>      rcu_nocb_need_deferred_wakeup() in order to correctly handle this case,
>      invoking rcu_core() when needed.
>      
>      This commit therefore avoids needlessly invoking RCU core processing
>      by checking rcu_segcblist_ready_cbs() only on non-offloaded CPUs.
>      This reduces overhead, for example, by reducing softirq activity.
>      
>      This change passed 30 minute tests of TREE01 through TREE09 each.
>      
>      On TREE08, there is at most 150us from the time that rcu_pending() chose
>      not to invoke RCU core processing to the time when the ready callbacks
>      were invoked by the rcuoc kthread.  This provides further evidence that
>      there is no need to invoke rcu_core() for offloaded callbacks that are
>      ready to invoke.
>      
>      Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Thanks
Neeraj

> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 85e3f29..bfd38f2 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -3716,7 +3716,8 @@ static int rcu_pending(int user)
>   		return 1;
>   
>   	/* Does this CPU have callbacks ready to invoke? */
> -	if (rcu_segcblist_ready_cbs(&rdp->cblist))
> +	if (!rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded(&rdp->cblist) &&
> +	    rcu_segcblist_ready_cbs(&rdp->cblist))
>   		return 1;
>   
>   	/* Has RCU gone idle with this CPU needing another grace period? */

--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation