Re: [PATCH 1/7] rcu/segcblist: Prevent useless GP start if no CBs to accelerate
From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Thu Jun 18 2020 - 20:04:46 EST
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 04:09:34PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 03:11:19PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 04:29:49PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >
> > First, this looks like a very nice optimization, thank you!
Thanks!
> > > Cc: urezki@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> As discussed over IRC, I updated the patch as shown below. Does that
> work for you?
Yes, that works for me. Thanks!
- Joel
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit ec037e1f438074eb16fd68a63d699fc419c9ba0c
> Author: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Jun 18 16:29:49 2020 -0400
>
> rcu/segcblist: Prevent useless GP start if no CBs to accelerate
>
> The rcu_segcblist_accelerate() function returns true iff it is necessary
> to request another grace period. A tracing session showed that this
> function unnecessarily requests grace periods.
>
> For exmaple, consider the following sequence of events:
> 1. Callbacks are queued only on the NEXT segment of CPU A's callback list.
> 2. CPU A runs RCU_SOFTIRQ, accelerating these callbacks from NEXT to WAIT.
> 3. Thus rcu_segcblist_accelerate() returns true, requesting grace period N.
> 4. RCU's grace-period kthread wakes up on CPU B and starts grace period N.
> 4. CPU A notices the new grace period and invokes RCU_SOFTIRQ.
> 5. CPU A's RCU_SOFTIRQ again invokes rcu_segcblist_accelerate(), but
> there are no new callbacks. However, rcu_segcblist_accelerate()
> nevertheless (uselessly) requests a new grace period N+1.
>
> This extra grace period results in additional lock contention and also
> additional wakeups, all for no good reason.
>
> This commit therefore adds a check to rcu_segcblist_accelerate() that
> prevents the return of true when there are no new callbacks.
>
> This change reduces the number of grace periods (GPs) and wakeups in each
> of eleven five-second rcutorture runs as follows:
>
> +----+-------------------+-------------------+
> | # | Number of GPs | Number of Wakeups |
> +====+=========+=========+=========+=========+
> | 1 | With | Without | With | Without |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 2 | 75 | 89 | 113 | 119 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 3 | 62 | 91 | 105 | 123 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 4 | 60 | 79 | 98 | 110 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 5 | 63 | 79 | 99 | 112 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 6 | 57 | 89 | 96 | 123 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 7 | 64 | 85 | 97 | 118 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 8 | 58 | 83 | 98 | 113 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 9 | 57 | 77 | 89 | 104 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 10 | 66 | 82 | 98 | 119 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | 11 | 52 | 82 | 83 | 117 |
> +----+---------+---------+---------+---------+
>
> The reduction in the number of wakeups ranges from 5% to 40%.
>
> Cc: urezki@xxxxxxxxx
> [ paulmck: Rework commit log and comment. ]
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> index 9a0f661..2d2a6b6b9 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
> @@ -475,8 +475,16 @@ bool rcu_segcblist_accelerate(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, unsigned long seq)
> * Also advance to the oldest segment of callbacks whose
> * ->gp_seq[] completion is at or after that passed in via "seq",
> * skipping any empty segments.
> + *
> + * Note that segment "i" (and any lower-numbered segments
> + * containing older callbacks) will be unaffected, and their
> + * grace-period numbers remain unchanged. For example, if i ==
> + * WAIT_TAIL, then neither WAIT_TAIL nor DONE_TAIL will be touched.
> + * Instead, the CBs in NEXT_TAIL will be merged with those in
> + * NEXT_READY_TAIL and the grace-period number of NEXT_READY_TAIL
> + * would be updated. NEXT_TAIL would then be empty.
> */
> - if (++i >= RCU_NEXT_TAIL)
> + if (rcu_segcblist_restempty(rsclp, i) || ++i >= RCU_NEXT_TAIL)
> return false;
>
> /*