From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, riel@surriel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using never-online CPUs
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:31:00 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZEmYFLKspo-rhyp4@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1713f8f6-88d6-41f1-bbc6-045b2e017289@paulmck-laptop>
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:17:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But the idea here is to spread the load of queueing the work as well as
> spreading the load of invoking the callbacks.
>
> I suppose that I could allocate an array of ints, gather the online CPUs
> into that array, and do a power-of-two distribution across that array.
> But RCU Tasks allows CPUs to go offline with queued callbacks, so this
> array would also need to include those CPUs as well as the ones that
> are online.
Ah, I see, so it needs to make the distinction between cpus which have never
been online and are currently offline but used to be online.
> Given that the common-case system has a dense cpus_online_mask, I opted
> to keep it simple, which is optimal in the common case.
>
> Or am I missing a trick here?
The worry is that on systems with actual CPU hotplugging, cpu_online_mask
can be pretty sparse - e.g. 1/4 filled wouldn't be too out there. In such
cases, the current code would end scheduling the work items on the issuing
CPU (which is what WORK_CPU_UNBOUND does) 3/4 of the time which probably
isn't the desired behavior.
So, I can initialize all per-cpu workqueues for all possible cpus on boot so
that rcu doesn't have to worry about it but that would still have a similar
problem of the callbacks not really being spread as intended.
I think it depends on how important it is to spread the callback workload
evenly. If that matters quite a bit, it probably would make sense to
maintain a cpumask for has-ever-been-online CPUs. Otherwise, do you think it
can just use an unbound workqueue and forget about manually distributing the
workload?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-26 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-26 17:26 Paul E. McKenney
2023-04-26 19:55 ` Tejun Heo
2023-04-26 21:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-04-26 21:31 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2023-04-26 21:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-04-26 22:09 ` Tejun Heo
2023-04-26 22:12 ` Tejun Heo
2023-04-26 22:29 ` 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=ZEmYFLKspo-rhyp4@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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®