Re: [PATCH rcu 13/14] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush()

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 04:08:17PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:40 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:08 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:48:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You guys might need to agree on the definition of "good" here.  Or maybe
> > > > > > > > understand the differences in your respective platforms' definitions of
> > > > > > > > "good".  ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Indeed. Bad is when once per-millisecond infinitely :) At least in such use
> > > > > > > workload a can detect a power delta and power gain. Anyway, below is a new
> > > > > > > trace where i do not use "flush" variant for the kvfree_rcu():
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > 1. Home screen swipe:
> > > > > > >          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1792.767750: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1003 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/2-33      [002] d..1  1792.771717: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=934 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/3-40      [001] d..1  1794.811816: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1508 bl=11
> > > > > > >          rcuop/1-26      [003] d..1  1797.116382: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2127 bl=16
> > > > > > >          rcuop/4-48      [001] d..1  1797.124422: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=95 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/5-55      [002] d..1  1797.124731: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=143 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/6-62      [005] d..1  1798.911719: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=132 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/2-33      [002] d..1  1803.003966: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3797 bl=29
> > > > > > >          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1803.004707: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2969 bl=23
> > >
> > > > > > > 2. App launches:
> > > > > > >          rcuop/4-48      [005] d..1  1831.087612: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6141 bl=47
> > > > > > >          rcuop/7-69      [007] d..1  1831.095578: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5464 bl=42
> > > > > > >          rcuop/5-55      [004] d..1  1832.703571: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8461 bl=66
> > > > > > >          rcuop/0-15      [004] d..1  1833.731603: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2548 bl=19
> > > > > > >          rcuop/1-26      [006] d..1  1833.743691: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2567 bl=20
> > > > > > >          rcuop/2-33      [006] d..1  1833.744005: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=2359 bl=18
> > > > > > >          rcuop/3-40      [006] d..1  1833.744286: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3681 bl=28
> > > > > > >          rcuop/4-48      [002] d..1  1838.079777: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10444 bl=81
> > > > > > >          rcuop/7-69      [001] d..1  1838.080375: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=12572 bl=98
> > > > > > >            <...>-62      [002] d..1  1838.080646: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=14135 bl=110
> > > > > > >          rcuop/6-62      [000] d..1  1838.087722: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=10839 bl=84
> > > > > > >            <...>-62      [003] d..1  1839.227022: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1834 bl=14
> > > > > > >            <...>-26      [001] d..1  1839.963315: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=5769 bl=45
> > > > > > >          rcuop/2-33      [001] d..1  1839.966485: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=3789 bl=29
> > > > > > >            <...>-40      [001] d..1  1839.966596: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6425 bl=50
> > > > > > >          rcuop/2-33      [005] d..1  1840.541272: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=825 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/2-33      [005] d..1  1840.547724: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=44 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/2-33      [005] d..1  1841.075759: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=516 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/0-15      [002] d..1  1841.695716: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=6312 bl=49
> > > > > > >          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1841.709714: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=39 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/5-55      [004] d..1  1843.112442: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=16007 bl=125
> > > > > > >          rcuop/5-55      [004] d..1  1843.115444: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=7901 bl=61
> > > > > > >          rcuop/6-62      [001] dn.1  1843.123983: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=8427 bl=65
> > > > > > >          rcuop/6-62      [006] d..1  1843.412383: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=981 bl=10
> > > > > > >          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1844.659812: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=1851 bl=14
> > > > > > >          rcuop/0-15      [003] d..1  1844.667790: rcu_batch_start: rcu_preempt CBs=135 bl=10
> > >
> > > Definitely better, but I'd still ask why not just rely on the lazy
> > > batching that we now have, since it is a memory pressure related
> > > usecase. Or another approach could be, for CONFIG_RCU_LAZY, don't
> > > disturb the lazy-RCU batching by queuing these "free memory" CBs; and
> > > instead keep your improved kvfree_rcu() batching only for
> > > !CONFIG_RCU_LAZY.
> > >
> >
> > 1. Double-batching?
> >
> > The kvfree_rcu() interface itself keeps track of when to reclaim:
> >   a) when a page is full;
> >   b) when i high storm of freeing over rcu;
> >   c) when a low memory condition.
> >
> > such control stays inside the kvfree_rcu(). Converting it to lazy
> > variant:
> >   a) lose the control, what will become as a problem;
> >   b) nothing is improved.
> 
> AFAICS, the only thing being changed is when you are giving memory
> back to the system. So you will be holding on to memory a bit longer.
> And there's shrinkers that are already flushing those. I don't think
> the users of kvfree_rcu() want to free memory instantly. If there is
> such usecase, please share it.
> 
Actually, ideally, we want to free a memory asap. The problem with extra 10
seconds is a big amount of un-reclaimed memory that usually can lead
to more frequent memory pressure and doing shrinking. We do not want
ideally trigger any shrinker. Because for us it is a big slow down
in a device behaviour.

> > 2. Converting the queue_rcu_work() to lazy variant breaks a humanity
> > interpretation when a queued work is supposed to be run. People do not
> > expect seconds when they queue the work.
> 
> Which people? ;)
> 
Who wrote the code :)

> > Same as in the kvfree_rcu()
> > we do not expect it we even used a high_prio queue in the beginning.
> > There are ~10 users who queue the work and they did not expect it to
> > be run in 10 seconds when they wrote the code.
> 
> That's a bit of a misinterpretation of what I'm saying. A variant
> queue_rcu_work_flush() can be added for those users (such as ones that
> are not freeing memory).
> 
If it is added for the kvfree_rcu() it is totally fine. Because there is
a batching in place.

--
Uladzislau Rezki