lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] use x86 cpu park to speedup smp_init in kexec situation
On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 06:32:15PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 09:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:57:07PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index ef8d36f580fc..544198c674f2 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -4246,11 +4246,11 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > >
> > > rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > > mask = rdp->grpmask;
> > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> >
> > If I am not too confused this morning, this can result in confusing
> > lockdep splats because lockdep needs RCU to be watching the CPU
> > acquiring the lock. See the rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()
> > function and is callers, with emphasis on lockdep_rcu_suspicious()
> > and rcu_read_lock_held_common().
>
> Hm, OK. And it is the very act of setting rnp->ofl_seq & 1 which
> triggers that, yes?

Prevents that from triggering, but if I recall correctly, yes.

> > > WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1));
> > > rcu_dynticks_eqs_online();
> > > smp_mb(); // Pair with rcu_gp_cleanup()'s ->ofl_seq barrier().
> > > - raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
>
>
>
> > > WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext | mask);
> > > newcpu = !(rnp->expmaskinitnext & mask);
> > > rnp->expmaskinitnext |= mask;
> > > @@ -4261,6 +4261,11 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > > rdp->rcu_onl_gp_seq = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_seq);
> > > rdp->rcu_onl_gp_flags = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags);
> > >
> > > + smp_mb(); // Pair with rcu_gp_cleanup()'s ->ofl_seq barrier().
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1);
> > > + smp_mb(); /* Ensure RCU read-side usage follows above initialization. */
> > > +
> > > /* An incoming CPU should never be blocking a grace period. */
> > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->qsmask & mask)) { /* RCU waiting on incoming CPU? */
> > > rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(rdp);
> > > @@ -4269,10 +4274,6 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > > } else {
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> >
> > And ditto here upon release.
> >
> > As a short-term hack, I suggest moving the ->ofl_seq field from the
> > rcu_node structure to the rcu_data structure. This will require the loop
> > in rcu_gp_init() to wait on each of the current rcu_node structure's CPUs.
> > Which is not good from the viewpoint of the RCU grace-period kthread's
> > CPU consumption, but it should allow you to make progress on your testing.
>
> Ok, thanks. My initial hack of sticking my own spinlock around the
> whole thing was also working for testing, but now I'm trying to clean
> it up so I can post something for merging.

Sounds good!

You know, maybe it would be way easier to just create a new spinlock and
use arch_spin_lock() to acquire it and arch_spin_unlock() to release it,
bypassing lockdep for that one lock. Then proceed as in your initial
patch.

> > Though I are having some difficulty remembering why that wait loop in
> > rcu_gp_init() needs to be there. I am going to try removing it and
> > seeing if rcutorture will be kind enough to remind me. ;-)
> >
> > And it will of course be necessary to upgrade rcutorture to test
> > concurrent CPU-online operations. Will there be some sort of
> > start-CPU-online function, or should I instead expect to need to
> > provide multiple kthreads for onlining and an additional kthread
> > for offliing?
>
> This is just at *boot* time, not runtime hotplug/unplug. We observed
> that we spend quite a lot of time on a 96-way 2-socket Skylake system
> just sending INIT to each CPU in turn, then waiting for it to be fully
> online, then moving on to the next one. Hence doing them all in
> parallel, which reduces the AP bringup time from about 300ms to 30ms.
>
> https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/parallel-5.16

Nice win!!!

And I do understand that you are only worried about boot speed, but
adequate stress-testing of this will require run-time exercising of this.
Yes, 30ms is fast, but you have other overheads when repeatedly rebooting,
and so doing runtime tests will find bugs faster.

> > Huh. I take it that concurrent online and offline is future work?
> > Or does that need to work initially?
>
> Concurrent *online* (at boot) is the whole point. Those last two
> commits currently in the branch linked above are the "oh crap, *that*
> part doesn't work if you really let it happen concurrently, so let's
> serialize them" hacks. In particular, the RCU one is
> https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/commitdiff/5f4b77c9459c
>
> And now I'm trying to come up with something a little less hackish :)

Understood! I am just trying to work out a decent validation plan for
this. Let's just say that changes in this area have not traditionally
been boring. ;-)

> > More to the point, what are you using to stress-test this capability?
>
> Just boot. With lots of CPUs (and vCPUs in qemu, but even with a nice
> fast parallel CPU bringup, Linux then spends the next 16 seconds
> printing silly pr_info messages about KVM features so it isn't the most
> exciting overall result right now)
>
> I confess I haven't actually tested runtime hotplug/unplug again
> recently. I should do that ;)

The rcutorture TREE03 scenario is rather aggressive about this.
From the root of a recent Linux-kernel source tree:

tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --duration 1h configs "TREE03" --trust-make
Or, if you have a 64-CPU system:

tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --duration 1h configs "4*TREE03" --trust-make

The latter would be a semi-credible smoke test for this sort of change.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-08 20:05    [W:0.099 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site