lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH v2 rcu 13/16] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush()
Date
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>

Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build
their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option.
This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order
to batch them. This means that a given RCU grace period covers more
callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing
the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which
can be a very good thing. This is not a subtle effect: In some important
use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%.

This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload
callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot
parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.

Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do
nothing but free memory. If the system is short on memory, a shrinker
will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness,
thus freeing their memory in short order. Similarly, the rcu_barrier()
function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked,
will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete
in a timely manner.

However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option.
For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until
the newly queued callback is invoked. It would not be a good for
synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system.
Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_flush() instead of
call_rcu(). The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_flush() callback on a
given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that
CPU. After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks
might as well get full benefit from it.

Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a
call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and
feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach
to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_flush() for the few places
where laziness is inappropriate.

And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one
in queue_rcu_work(), given that callers to queue_rcu_work() are
not necessarily OK with long delays.

Therefore, make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush() in order to revert
to the old behavior.

Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 7cd5f5e7e0a1b..b4b0e828b529e 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ bool queue_rcu_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq, struct rcu_work *rwork)

if (!test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work))) {
rwork->wq = wq;
- call_rcu(&rwork->rcu, rcu_work_rcufn);
+ call_rcu_flush(&rwork->rcu, rcu_work_rcufn);
return true;
}

--
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-22 02:05    [W:0.233 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site