From: Samir M <samir@linux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com, frederic@kernel.org, joelagnelf@nvidia.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, srikar@linux.ibm.com,
sshegde@linux.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, urezki@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuhp: Expedite synchronize_rcu during SMT switch
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 23:18:59 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <068ef765-8999-41c0-8733-1184df2adb3a@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260119114333.GI1890602@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 19/01/26 5:13 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 04:17:40PM +0530, Vishal Chourasia wrote:
>> Expedite synchronize_rcu() during the cpuhp_smt_[enable|disable] path to
>> accelerate the operation.
>>
>> Bulk CPU hotplug operations—such as switching SMT modes across all
>> cores—require hotplugging multiple CPUs in rapid succession. On large
>> systems, this process takes significant time, increasing as the number
>> of CPUs to hotplug during SMT switch grows, leading to substantial
>> delays on high-core-count machines. Analysis [1] reveals that the
>> majority of this time is spent waiting for synchronize_rcu().
>>
> You seem to have left out all the useful bits from your changelog again
> :/
>
> Anyway, ISTR Joel posted a patch hoisting a lock; it was a icky, but not
> something we can't live with either.
>
> Also, memory got jogged and I think something like the below will remove
> 2/3 of your rcu woes as well.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 8df2d773fe3b..1365c19444b2 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -2669,6 +2669,7 @@ int cpuhp_smt_disable(enum cpuhp_smt_control ctrlval)
> int cpu, ret = 0;
>
> cpu_maps_update_begin();
> + rcu_sync_enter(&cpu_hotplug_lock.rss);
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> if (topology_is_primary_thread(cpu))
> continue;
> @@ -2698,6 +2699,7 @@ int cpuhp_smt_disable(enum cpuhp_smt_control ctrlval)
> }
> if (!ret)
> cpu_smt_control = ctrlval;
> + rcu_sync_exit(&cpu_hotplug_lock.rss);
> cpu_maps_update_done();
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -2715,6 +2717,7 @@ int cpuhp_smt_enable(void)
> int cpu, ret = 0;
>
> cpu_maps_update_begin();
> + rcu_sync_enter(&cpu_hotplug_lock.rss);
> cpu_smt_control = CPU_SMT_ENABLED;
> for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> /* Skip online CPUs and CPUs on offline nodes */
> @@ -2728,6 +2731,7 @@ int cpuhp_smt_enable(void)
> /* See comment in cpuhp_smt_disable() */
> cpuhp_online_cpu_device(cpu);
> }
> + rcu_sync_exit(&cpu_hotplug_lock.rss);
> cpu_maps_update_done();
> return ret;
> }
Hi,
I verified this patch using the configuration described below.
Configuration:
• Kernel version: 6.19.0-rc6
• Number of CPUs: 1536
Earlier verification of an older version of this patch was performed on
a system with *2048 CPUs*. Due to system unavailability, the current
verification was carried out on a *different system.*
Using this setup, I evaluated the patch with both SMT enabled and SMT
disabled. patch shows a significant improvement in the SMT=off case and
a measurable improvement in the SMT=on case.
The results indicate that when SMT is enabled, the system time is
noticeably higher. In contrast, with SMT disabled, no significant
increase in system time is observed.
SMT=ON -> sys 50m42.805s
SMT=OFF -> sys 0m0.064s
SMT Mode | Without Patch | With Patch | % Improvement |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SMT=off | 20m 32.210s | 5m 30.898s | +73.15% |
SMT=on | 62m 46.549s | 55m 45.671s | +11.18% |
Please add below tag:
Tested-by: Samir M <samir@linux.ibm.com>
Regards,
Samir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-27 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-12 9:43 [PATCH] cpuhp: Expedite synchronize_rcu during CPU hotplug operations Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-12 10:08 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-12 10:43 ` Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-12 11:07 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-12 12:02 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-12 12:57 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-12 16:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-12 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-01-12 17:05 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-12 18:27 ` Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-13 0:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-01-12 22:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-13 0:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-01-13 2:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-13 4:53 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-13 8:57 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-14 4:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-01-14 8:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-16 19:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-01-14 3:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-01-12 17:09 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-12 17:36 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-13 12:18 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-13 12:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-13 14:17 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-13 14:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-13 14:53 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-13 18:17 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-13 17:58 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-01-12 12:21 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-12 12:46 ` Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-12 14:03 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-12 14:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-12 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-12 14:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-12 17:52 ` Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-12 14:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-12 18:00 ` Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-13 9:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-19 10:47 ` [PATCH] cpuhp: Expedite synchronize_rcu during SMT switch Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-19 11:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-19 13:45 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-19 14:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-19 14:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-19 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-27 17:48 ` Samir M [this message]
2026-01-29 7:05 ` Samir M
2026-02-03 6:31 ` Samir M
2026-01-19 10:54 ` [RESEND] " Vishal Chourasia
2026-01-18 11:38 ` [PATCH] cpuhp: Expedite synchronize_rcu during CPU hotplug operations Samir M
2026-01-19 5:18 ` Joel Fernandes
2026-01-19 13:53 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-19 21:10 ` joelagnelf
2026-02-02 8:46 ` Vishal Chourasia
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=068ef765-8999-41c0-8733-1184df2adb3a@linux.ibm.com \
--to=samir@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=vishalc@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome