Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 01/15] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched() provide RCU quiescent state

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:22:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU quiescent
> > states to cond_resched().  This commit also simplifies the code that
> > used to interact with cond_resched_rcu_qs(), and that now interacts with
> > cond_resched(), to reduce its overhead.  This reduction is necessary to
> > allow the heavier-weight cond_resched_rcu_qs() mechanism to be invoked
> > everywhere that cond_resched() is invoked.
> > 
> > Part of that reduction in overhead converts the jiffies_till_sched_qs
> > kernel parameter to read-only at runtime, thus eliminating the need for
> > bounds checking.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [ paulmck: Tuning for performance issues reported by 0day Test Robot. ]
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index 8337e2db0bb2..d2f291a3a44a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -1522,10 +1522,11 @@ static inline int test_tsk_need_resched(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >   * cond_resched_lock() will drop the spinlock before scheduling,
> >   * cond_resched_softirq() will enable bhs before scheduling.
> >   */
> > +void rcu_all_qs(void);
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> >  extern int _cond_resched(void);
> >  #else
> > -static inline int _cond_resched(void) { return 0; }
> > +static inline int _cond_resched(void) { rcu_all_qs(); return 0; }
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  #define cond_resched() ({			\
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 51d4c3acf32d..e40cb5190783 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -537,8 +537,8 @@ module_param(rcu_kick_kthreads, bool, 0644);
> >   * How long the grace period must be before we start recruiting
> >   * quiescent-state help from rcu_note_context_switch().
> >   */
> > -static ulong jiffies_till_sched_qs = HZ / 20;
> > -module_param(jiffies_till_sched_qs, ulong, 0644);
> > +static ulong jiffies_till_sched_qs = HZ / 10;
> > +module_param(jiffies_till_sched_qs, ulong, 0444);
> >  
> >  static bool rcu_start_gp_advanced(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp,
> >  				  struct rcu_data *rdp);
> > @@ -1230,7 +1230,6 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  	unsigned long jtsq;
> >  	bool *rnhqp;
> >  	bool *ruqp;
> > -	unsigned long rjtsc;
> >  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> >  
> >  	/*
> > @@ -1247,23 +1246,13 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  		return 1;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/* Compute and saturate jiffies_till_sched_qs. */
> > -	jtsq = jiffies_till_sched_qs;
> > -	rjtsc = rcu_jiffies_till_stall_check();
> > -	if (jtsq > rjtsc / 2) {
> > -		WRITE_ONCE(jiffies_till_sched_qs, rjtsc);
> > -		jtsq = rjtsc / 2;
> > -	} else if (jtsq < 1) {
> > -		WRITE_ONCE(jiffies_till_sched_qs, 1);
> > -		jtsq = 1;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Has this CPU encountered a cond_resched_rcu_qs() since the
> >  	 * beginning of the grace period?  For this to be the case,
> >  	 * the CPU has to have noticed the current grace period.  This
> >  	 * might not be the case for nohz_full CPUs looping in the kernel.
> >  	 */
> > +	jtsq = jiffies_till_sched_qs;
> >  	rnp = rdp->mynode;
> >  	ruqp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks.rcu_urgent_qs, rdp->cpu);
> >  	if (time_after(jiffies, rdp->rsp->gp_start + jtsq) &&
> > @@ -1271,7 +1260,7 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  	    READ_ONCE(rdp->gpnum) == rnp->gpnum && !rdp->gpwrap) {
> >  		trace_rcu_fqs(rdp->rsp->name, rdp->gpnum, rdp->cpu, TPS("rqc"));
> >  		return 1;
> > -	} else {
> > +	} else if (time_after(jiffies, rdp->rsp->gp_start + jtsq)) {
> >  		/* Load rcu_qs_ctr before store to rcu_urgent_qs. */
> >  		smp_store_release(ruqp, true);
> >  	}
> > @@ -1299,10 +1288,6 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  	 * updates are only once every few jiffies, the probability of
> >  	 * lossage (and thus of slight grace-period extension) is
> >  	 * quite low.
> > -	 *
> > -	 * Note that if the jiffies_till_sched_qs boot/sysfs parameter
> > -	 * is set too high, we override with half of the RCU CPU stall
> > -	 * warning delay.
> >  	 */
> >  	rnhqp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks.rcu_need_heavy_qs, rdp->cpu);
> >  	if (!READ_ONCE(*rnhqp) &&
> > @@ -1311,7 +1296,7 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  		WRITE_ONCE(*rnhqp, true);
> >  		/* Store rcu_need_heavy_qs before rcu_urgent_qs. */
> >  		smp_store_release(ruqp, true);
> > -		rdp->rsp->jiffies_resched += 5; /* Re-enable beating. */
> > +		rdp->rsp->jiffies_resched += jtsq; /* Re-enable beating. */
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	/*
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 17c667b427b4..9433633012ba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4808,6 +4808,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> >  		preempt_schedule_common();
> >  		return 1;
> >  	}
> > +	rcu_all_qs();
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(_cond_resched);
> 
> So I'm a bit uneasy about this change:
> 
> - There's hundreds of uses of cond_resched(), some of them in commonly inlined
>   functions.
> 
> - cond_resched() typically gets called in functions that _might_ take a long time
>   to execute, but that's not a given.
> 
> - it's definitely getting called opportunistically as well, under
>   PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, from common lightweight helpers that we know are in
>   schedulable contexts. We risk adding significant overhead here.
> 
> So what we risk here is turning a known to be super simple function into something 
> much slower - and exporting slowdowns to literally thousands of explicit and 
> implicit usage sites.

Yeah, I have been refining this one since November.  It finally seems
to make 0day Test Robot happy, but it isn't going to hurt to keep it
out for another cycle.

I will rebase it into my stack intended for 4.15 before sending you a
pull request.

							Thanx, Paul