Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

[Ingo Molnar]

* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 02:44:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:58:25AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just 
> > > > > > > > have per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake 
> > > > > > > > them up via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP 
> > > > > > > > cross call (wakeups do immediate cross-calls already).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > My concern with this is that the cache misses accessing all the 
> > > > > > > processes on this single waitqueue would be serialized, slowing 
> > > > > > > things down. In contrast, the bitmask that smp_call_function() 
> > > > > > > traverses delivers on the order of a thousand CPUs' worth of bits 
> > > > > > > per cache miss.  I will give it a try, though.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > At least if you go via the migration threads, you can queue up 
> > > > > > requests to them locally. But there's going to be cachemisses 
> > > > > > _anyway_, since you have to access them all from a single CPU, 
> > > > > > and then they have to fetch details about what to do, and then 
> > > > > > have to notify the originator about completion.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ah, so you are suggesting that I use smp_call_function() to run 
> > > > > code on each CPU that wakes up that CPU's migration thread?  I 
> > > > > will take a look at this.
> > > > 
> > > > My suggestion was to queue up a dummy 'struct migration_req' up with 
> > > > it (change migration_req::task == NULL to mean 'nothing') and simply 
> > > > wake it up using wake_up_process().
> > > 
> > > OK.  I was thinking of just using wake_up_process() without the
> > > migration_req structure, and unconditionally setting a per-CPU
> > > variable from within migration_thread() just before the list_empty()
> > > check.  In your approach we would need a NULL-pointer check just
> > > before the call to __migrate_task().
> > > 
> > > > That will force a quiescent state, without the need for any extra 
> > > > information, right?
> > > 
> > > Yep!
> > > 
> > > > This is what the scheduler code does, roughly:
> > > > 
> > > >                 wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread);
> > > >                 wait_for_completion(&req.done);
> > > > 
> > > > and this will always have to perform well. The 'req' could be put 
> > > > into PER_CPU, and a loop could be done like this:
> > > > 
> > > > 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > > >                 wake_up_process(cpu_rq(cpu)->migration_thread);
> > > > 
> > > > 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > > >                 wait_for_completion(&per_cpu(req, cpu).done);
> > > > 
> > > > hm?
> > > 
> > > My concern is the linear slowdown for large systems, but this 
> > > should be OK for modest systems (a few 10s of CPUs).  However, I 
> > > will try it out -- it does not need to be a long-term solution, 
> > > after all.
> > 
> > I think there is going to be a linear slowdown no matter what - 
> > because sending that many IPIs is going to be linear. (there are 
> > no 'broadcast to all' IPIs anymore - on x86 we only have them if 
> > all physical APIC IDs are 7 or smaller.)
> 
> With the current code, agreed.  One could imagine making an IPI 
> tree, so that a given CPU IPIs (say) eight subordinates.  Making 
> this work nice with CPU hotplug would be entertaining, to say the 
> least.

Certainly! :-)

As a general note, unrelated to your patches: i think our 
CPU-hotplug related complexity seems to be a bit too much. This is 
really just a gut feeling - from having seen many patches that also 
have hotplug notifiers.

I'm wondering whether this is because it's structured in a 
suboptimal way, or because i'm (intuitively) under-estimating the 
complexity of what it takes to express what happens when a CPU is 
offlined and then onlined?

	Ingo
--
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/