Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:45:05 -0400 (EDT) | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/16] Prototype RCU usable from idle, exception, offline |
| |
----- On Mar 13, 2020, at 11:42 AM, paulmck paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 03:41:46PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:16:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> > Hello! >> > >> > This series provides two variants of Tasks RCU, a rude variant inspired >> > by Steven Rostedt's use of schedule_on_each_cpu(), and a tracing variant >> > requested by the BPF folks and perhaps also of use for other tracing >> > use cases. >> > >> > The tracing variant has explicit read-side markers to permit finite grace >> > periods even given in-kernel loops in PREEMPT=n builds It also protects >> > code in the idle loop, on exception entry/exit paths, and on the various >> > CPU-hotplug online/offline code paths, thus having protection properties >> > similar to SRCU. However, unlike SRCU, this variant avoids expensive >> > instructions in the read-side primitives, thus having read-side overhead >> > similar to that of preemptible RCU. >> > >> > There are of course downsides. The grace-period code can send IPIs to >> > CPUs, even when those CPUs are in the idle loop or in nohz_full userspace. >> > It is necessary to scan the full tasklist, much as for Tasks RCU. There >> > is a single callback queue guarded by a single lock, again, much as for >> > Tasks RCU. If needed, these downsides can be at least partially remedied >> >> So what we trade to fix the issues we are having with tracing against extended >> grace periods, we lose in CPU isolation. That worries me a bit as tracing can >> be thoroughly used with nohz_full and CPU isolation. > > First, disturbing nohz_full CPUs can be avoided by the sysadm simply > refusing to remove tracepoints while sensitive applications are running > on nohz_full CPUs.
I doubt this approach will survive real-life.
> > Second, for non-CPU-bound real-time programs with mostly-idle CPUs, > I should be able to decrease the likelihood of sending IPIs pretty much > to zero. > > Or am I missing something here?
I would recommend considering the following alternative for this tracing-rcu flavor:
- For all CPUs which are not nohz_full: - Implement fast RCU read-side which only requires compiler barriers, - Use IPIs to each of those CPUs when doing a grace period.
- For all nohz_full CPUS: - Dynamically detect CPUs which are nohz_full, - Implement slower RCU read-side with memory barriers, - No need to issue any IPI to those CPUs when doing the grace period.
This should cover all use-cases: staying fast for the common case, without disturbing RT workloads.
Thoughts ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
-- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
| |