Re: Instrumentation and RCU
From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Tue Mar 10 2020 - 11:13:30 EST
----- On Mar 9, 2020, at 4:47 PM, paulmck paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
>
> Suppose that we had a variant of RCU that had about the same read-side
> overhead as Preempt-RCU, but which could be used from idle as well as
> from CPUs in the process of coming online or going offline? I have not
> thought through the irq/NMI/exception entry/exit cases, but I don't see
> why that would be problem.
>
> This would have explicit critical-section entry/exit code, so it would
> not be any help for trampolines.
>
> Would such a variant of RCU help?
>
> Yeah, I know. Just what the kernel doesn't need, yet another variant
> of RCU...
Hi Paul,
I think that before introducing yet another RCU flavor, it's important
to take a step back and look at the tracer requirements first. If those
end up being covered by currently available RCU flavors, then why add
another ?
I can start with a few use-cases I have in mind. Others should feel free
to pitch in:
Tracing callsite context:
1) Thread context
1.1) Preemption enabled
One tracepoint in this category is syscall enter/exit. We should introduce
a variant of tracepoints relying on SRCU for this use-case so we can take
page faults when fetching userspace data.
1.2) Preemption disabled
Tree-RCU works fine.
1.3) IRQs disabled
Tree-RCU works fine.
2) IRQ handler context
Tree-RCU works fine.
3) NMI context
Tree-RCU works fine.
4) cpuidle context (!rcu_is_watching())
- By all means, we should not have tracepoints requiring to temporarily enable
RCU in frequent code-paths. It appears that we should be able to remove the few
offenders we currently have (e.g. enter from usermode),
- For tracepoints which are infrequently called from !rcu_is_watching context, checking
whether RCU is watching and only enabling when needed should be fast enough.
Are there other use-cases am I missing that would justify adding another flavor of RCU ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com