From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751305AbcGNOO0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:14:26 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:46168 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751160AbcGNOOY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:14:24 -0400
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:14:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes
Message-ID: <20160714141416.GP30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CALAqxLV2H06M2AxP2kK7pGHjLgQAaGdHB9HJEGZjH_Rouy4WhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713182102.GJ4065@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713183347.GK4065@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CALAqxLU76kVm8b5GNnSk25-Xk6D1efiWtwNJbY1th_pcN9Ks=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713201823.GB29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713202657.GW30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160713203944.GC29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713205102.GZ30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160714131809.GO30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160714131809.GO30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:51:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So, IIRC, the trade-off is a full memory barrier in read_lock and
> > read_unlock() vs sync_sched() in write.
> > 
> > Full memory barriers are expensive and while the combined cost might
> > well exceed the cost of the sync_sched() it doesn't suffer the latency
> > issues.
> > 
> > Not sure if we can frob the two in a single codebase, but I can have a
> > poke if Oleg or Paul doesn't beat me to it.
> 
> OK, not too horrible if I say so myself :-)
> 
> The below is a compile tested only first draft so far. I'll go give it
> some runtime next.

Doesn't explode if I run:

root@ivb-ep:/cgroup# mkdir ponies; for ((i=0; i<60; i++)) ; do while :; do echo $$ > tasks; echo $$ > ponies/tasks ; done & done

with cgroup using either READER or WRITER bias.

So passes light torture.