From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: "frederic@kernel.org" <frederic@kernel.org>,
"quic_neeraju@quicinc.com" <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
"joel@joelfernandes.org" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove duplicate settings for rcu boost kthreads affinity
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 11:26:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221221192622.GD4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB58806ABF242993103390A6F5DAE79@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 01:02:03PM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:00:29PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > Currently, when CPUs going offline, the rcu boost kthreads CPU
> > affinity has been reset in rcutree_offline_cpu(), therefore this
> > commit remove duplicate settings in rcutree_dead_cpu().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
> >
> >One question...
> >
> >Given that rcutree_offline_cpu() causes rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity()
> >to be invoked with the number of the outgoing CPU, but rcutree_dead_cpu()
> >instead passes in -1, are these two invocations really redundant?
> >
> >Although -1 is passed in, but at this time, the outgoing CPU has been removed from
> >rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp), in other words, we will eliminate the same CPU, which is
> >also we passed in cpu in the rcutree_offline_cpu() before.
> >
>
> I also used " qemu -smp 4 "for a simple test.
>
> 1) rcutree_offline_cpu()
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 set_cpus_allowed_ptr (p=p@entry=0xffff888100bd9cc0, new_mask=new_mask@entry=0xffff888100ce7cd0)
> at kernel/sched/core.c:2939
> #1 0xffffffff811be169 in rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity (rnp=0xffffffff837a4c00 <rcu_state>,
> outgoingcpu=outgoingcpu@entry=3) at kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1250
> #2 0xffffffff811cfa9f in rcutree_affinity_setting (outgoing=3, cpu=3) at kernel/rcu/tree.c:4297
> #3 rcutree_offline_cpu (cpu=3) at kernel/rcu/tree.c:4341
> #4 0xffffffff810c4e6f in cpuhp_invoke_callback (cpu=cpu@entry=3, state=state@entry=CPUHP_AP_RCUTREE_ONLINE,
> bringup=bringup@entry=false, node=<optimized out>, lastp=lastp@entry=0xffff88815b027568) at kernel/cpu.c:192
> #5 0xffffffff810c6e24 in cpuhp_thread_fun (cpu=<optimized out>) at kernel/cpu.c:785
> #6 0xffffffff8111784e in smpboot_thread_fn (data=0xffff88810014c3c0) at kernel/smpboot.c:164
> #7 0xffffffff8110c88e in kthread (_create=0xffff8881009b8b00) at kernel/kthread.c:376
> #8 0xffffffff81002902 in ret_from_fork () at arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:306
> #9 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>
> (gdb) p/x *0xffff888100ce7cd0
> $1 = 0x7
>
> 2) rcutree_dead_cpu()
>
> #0 set_cpus_allowed_ptr (p=p@entry=0xffff888100bd9cc0, new_mask=new_mask@entry=0xffff888109fc7948)
> at kernel/sched/core.c:2939
> #1 0xffffffff811be169 in rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity (rnp=0xffffffff837a4c00 <rcu_state>,
> outgoingcpu=outgoingcpu@entry=-1) at kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1250
> #2 0xffffffff811cf4a1 in rcutree_dead_cpu (cpu=3) at kernel/rcu/tree.c:4176
> #3 0xffffffff810c4e6f in cpuhp_invoke_callback (cpu=cpu@entry=3, state=CPUHP_RCUTREE_PREP, bringup=bringup@entry=false,
> node=node@entry=0x0 <fixed_percpu_data>, lastp=lastp@entry=0x0 <fixed_percpu_data>) at kernel/cpu.c:192
> #4 0xffffffff810c58f5 in cpuhp_invoke_callback_range (bringup=bringup@entry=false, cpu=cpu@entry=3,
> st=st@entry=0xffff88815b027540, target=target@entry=CPUHP_OFFLINE) at kernel/cpu.c:675
> #5 0xffffffff827a5f6a in cpuhp_down_callbacks (target=CPUHP_OFFLINE, st=0xffff88815b027540, cpu=3) at kernel/cpu.c:1170
> #6 _cpu_down (cpu=cpu@entry=3, tasks_frozen=tasks_frozen@entry=0, target=target@entry=CPUHP_OFFLINE) at kernel/cpu.c:1170
> #7 0xffffffff810c6ff8 in cpu_down_maps_locked (target=CPUHP_OFFLINE, cpu=3) at kernel/cpu.c:1202
> #8 cpu_down (cpu=3, target=target@entry=CPUHP_OFFLINE) at kernel/cpu.c:1210
> #9 0xffffffff810c7906 in cpu_device_down (dev=dev@entry=0xffff88815b026988) at kernel/cpu.c:1227
>
> (gdb) p/x *0xffff888109fc7948
> $2 = 0x7
>
> As can be seen from the above, we have set the same cpumask twice for the same boost kthreads.
Very good, thank you for checking!
I have queued this as shown below, so please let me know of any issues.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 5815245b56229198d5f5d0c48c26d3c0c53ee222
Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Date: Wed Dec 21 11:15:43 2022 -0800
rcu: Remove redundant call to rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity()
The rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity() function is invoked at
rcutree_online_cpu() and rcutree_offline_cpu() time, early in the online
timeline and late in the offline timeline, respectively. It is also
invoked from rcutree_dead_cpu(), however, in the absence of userspace
manipulations (for which userspace must take responsibility), this call
is redundant with that from rcutree_offline_cpu(). This redundancy can
be demonstrated by printing out the relevant cpumasks
This commit therefore removes the call to rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity()
from rcutree_dead_cpu().
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 c3255d27286c4..a6181b76fd5ab 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -4165,15 +4165,10 @@ static void rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp_leaf)
*/
int rcutree_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
{
- struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
- struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode; /* Outgoing CPU's rdp & rnp. */
-
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU))
return 0;
WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.n_online_cpus, rcu_state.n_online_cpus - 1);
- /* Adjust any no-longer-needed kthreads. */
- rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity(rnp, -1);
// Stop-machine done, so allow nohz_full to disable tick.
tick_dep_clear(TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU);
return 0;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-21 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-15 9:00 Zqiang
2022-12-17 1:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-17 2:00 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2022-12-17 13:02 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2022-12-21 19:26 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2022-12-22 9:42 ` Zhang, Qiang1
2023-01-12 15:07 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-01-12 15:29 ` 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=20221221192622.GD4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qiang1.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.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®