From: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: <paulmck@kernel.org>, <frederic@kernel.org>,
<josh@joshtriplett.org>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
<joel@joelfernandes.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<zhangfei.gao@foxmail.com>, <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
<urezki@gmail.com>, <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
<pbonzini@redhat.com>, <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
<eric.auger@redhat.com>, <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] srcu: Reduce blocking agressiveness of expedited grace periods further
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:58:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <95d8e5c0-e382-4e8a-c8c6-2acbc0d31ca8@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o7ya1ozz.wl-maz@kernel.org>
On 6/30/2022 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 05:12:01 +0100,
> Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Commit 640a7d37c3f4 ("srcu: Block less aggressively for expedited
>> grace periods") highlights a problem where aggressively blocking
>> SRCU expedited grace periods, as was introduced in commit
>> 282d8998e997 ("srcu: Prevent expedited GPs and blocking readers
>> from consuming CPU"), introduces ~2 minutes delay to the overall
>> ~3.5 minutes boot time, when starting VMs with "-bios QEMU_EFI.fd"
>> cmdline on qemu, which results in very high rate of memslots
>> add/remove, which causes > ~6000 synchronize_srcu() calls for
>> kvm->srcu SRCU instance.
>>
>> Below table captures the experiments done by Zhangfei Gao and Shameer
>> to measure the boottime impact with various values of non-sleeping
>> per phase counts, with HZ_250 and preemption enabled:
>>
>> +──────────────────────────+────────────────+
>> | SRCU_MAX_NODELAY_PHASE | Boot time (s) |
>> +──────────────────────────+────────────────+
>> | 100 | 30.053 |
>> | 150 | 25.151 |
>> | 200 | 20.704 |
>> | 250 | 15.748 |
>> | 500 | 11.401 |
>> | 1000 | 11.443 |
>> | 10000 | 11.258 |
>> | 1000000 | 11.154 |
>> +──────────────────────────+────────────────+
>>
>> Analysis on the experiment results showed improved boot time
>> with non blocking delays close to one jiffy duration. This
>> was also seen when number of per-phase iterations were scaled
>> to one jiffy.
>>
>> So, this change scales per-grace-period phase number of non-sleeping
>> polls, such that, non-sleeping polls are done for one jiffy. In addition
>> to this, srcu_get_delay() call in srcu_gp_end(), which is used to calculate
>> the delay used for scheduling callbacks, is replaced with the check for
>> expedited grace period. This is done, to schedule cbs for completed expedited
>> grace periods immediately, which results in improved boot time seen in
>> experiments.
>>
>> In addition to the changes to default per phase delays, this change
>> adds 3 new kernel parameters - srcutree.srcu_max_nodelay,
>> srcutree.srcu_max_nodelay_phase, srcutree.srcu_retry_check_delay.
>> This allows users to configure the srcu grace period scanning delays,
>> depending on their system configuration requirements.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
>> Tested-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Change in v2:
>>
>> - Change srcu_max_nodelay default value to consider phase delay
>> iterations
>> - Apply Pauls' feedback
>> - Add Marc's Tested-by
>
> I gave this a go on the same platform as v1, and the result is
> actually much better as I didn't have to add any extra command-line
> option to get to a reasonable result (41s). I think we have a winner.
>
Thank you for testing it!
Thanks
Neeraj
> Thanks again,
>
> M.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-30 9:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-30 4:12 Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-30 6:34 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-30 7:06 ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2022-06-30 9:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-06-30 9:28 ` Neeraj Upadhyay [this message]
2022-06-30 16:41 ` 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=95d8e5c0-e382-4e8a-c8c6-2acbc0d31ca8@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=chenxiang66@hisilicon.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=zhangfei.gao@foxmail.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®