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 12:09:07 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZEmhAzUMnQ1rP2YU@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4d39cb7-dbb7-44ad-b90e-71655bdbefd1@paulmck-laptop>
Hello, Paul.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:55:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But if the call_rcu_tasks_*() code detects too much lock contention on
> CPU 0's queue, which indicates that very large numbers of callbacks are
> being queued, it switches to per-CPU mode. In which case, we are likely
> to have lots of callbacks on lots of queues, and in that case we really
> want to invoke them concurrently.
>
> Then if a later grace period finds that there are no more callbacks, it
> switches back to CPU-0 mode. So this extra workqueue overhead should
> happen only on systems with sparse cpu_online_masks that are under heavy
> call_rcu_tasks_*() load.
I still wonder whether it can be solved by simply switching to unbound
workqueues instead of implementing custom load-spreading mechanism. We'd be
basically asking the scheduler to what it thinks is best instead of trying
to make manual CPU placement decisions. That said, as a fix, the original
patch looks fine to me. Gonna go ack that.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-26 22:09 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
2023-04-26 21:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-04-26 22:09 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
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=ZEmhAzUMnQ1rP2YU@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®