From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: "frederic@kernel.org" <frederic@kernel.org>,
"rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Add rnp->cbovldmask check in rcutree_migrate_callbacks()
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 21:01:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220506040141.GA1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB5880A25078A7D4DBAB1267C2DAC59@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 12:40:09AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 11:52:36PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > Currently, the rnp's cbovlmask is set in call_rcu(). when CPU going
> > offline, the outgoing CPU's callbacks is migrated to target CPU, the
> > number of callbacks on the my_rdp may be overloaded, if overload and
> > there is no call_rcu() call on target CPU for a long time, the rnp's
> > cbovldmask is not set in time. in order to fix this situation, add
> > check_cb_ovld_locked() in rcutree_migrate_callbacks() to help CPU more
> > quickly reach quiescent states.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
>
> >Doesn't this get set right at the end of the current grace period?
> >Given that there is a callback overload, there should be a grace period in progress.
> >
> >See this code in rcu_gp_cleanup():
> >
> > if (rcu_is_leaf_node(rnp))
> > for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, rnp->cbovldmask) {
> > rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > check_cb_ovld_locked(rdp, rnp);
> > }
> >
> >So what am I missing here? Or are you planning to remove the above code?
>
> We only checked the overloaded rdp at the end of current grace period, for
> my_rdp overloaded cause by migration callbacks to it, if the my_rdp overloaded,
> and the my_rdp->mynode 's cbovldmask is empty, the my_rdp overloaded may be
> not checked at end of the current grace period.
Very good!
> I have another question, why don't we call check_cb_ovld_locked() when rdp's n_cbs decreases.
> for example call check_cb_ovld_locked() in rcu_do_bacth(), not at the end of grace period.
The idea (as you noted above) is that it gets cleared at the end of each
grace period. We could also clear it in rcu_do_batch() as you suggest,
but to make that change you would need to convince me that the extra
overhead and complexity would provide a useful benefit. This will not
be easy. ;-)
> >If so, wouldn't you also need to clear the indication for the CPU that is going offline, being careful to handle the case where the two CPUs have different leaf rcu_node structures?
>
> Yes the offline CPU need to clear.
But again, the clearing happens at the end of the next grace period.
Here we lose (almost) nothing by leaving the bit set because the other
bit is set as well.
Another question, as long as we brought up rcu_do_batch().
Why have the local variable "empty" given that the local variable "count"
could be checked against zero?
In the meantime, I have queued your commit for v5.20, thank you and
good eyes! As always, I could not resist the urge to wordsmith the
commit log, so could you please check it for errors?
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 5c36f04bd460246dd28c178ce5dce6fb02f898e1
Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Date: Thu May 5 23:52:36 2022 +0800
rcu: Add rnp->cbovldmask check in rcutree_migrate_callbacks()
Currently, the rcu_node structure's ->cbovlmask field is set in call_rcu()
when a given CPU is suffering from callback overload. But if that CPU
goes offline, the outgoing CPU's callbacks is migrated to the running
CPU, which is likely to overload the running CPU. However, that CPU's
bit in its leaf rcu_node structure's ->cbovlmask field remains zero.
Initially, this is OK because the outgoing CPU's bit remains set.
However, that bit will be cleared at the next end of a grace period,
at which time it is quite possible that the running CPU will still
be overloaded. If the running CPU invokes call_rcu(), then overload
will be checked for and the bit will be set. Except that there is no
guarantee that the running CPU will invoke call_rcu(), in which case the
next grace period will fail to take the running CPU's overload condition
into account. Plus, because the bit is not set, the end of the grace
period won't check for overload on this CPU.
This commit therefore adds a call to check_cb_ovld_locked() in
check_cb_ovld_locked() to set the running CPU's ->cbovlmask bit
appropriately.
Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 9dc4c4e82db62..bcc5876c9753b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -4577,6 +4577,7 @@ void rcutree_migrate_callbacks(int cpu)
needwake = needwake || rcu_advance_cbs(my_rnp, my_rdp);
rcu_segcblist_disable(&rdp->cblist);
WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_segcblist_empty(&my_rdp->cblist) != !rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&my_rdp->cblist));
+ check_cb_ovld_locked(my_rdp, my_rnp);
if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(my_rdp)) {
raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(my_rnp); /* irqs remain disabled. */
__call_rcu_nocb_wake(my_rdp, true, flags);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-06 4:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-05 15:52 Zqiang
2022-05-05 19:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-05-06 0:40 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2022-05-06 4:01 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2022-05-06 12:43 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2022-05-06 18:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20220506040141.GA1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qiang1.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®