lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 06/10] rcu/hotplug: Make rcutree_dead_cpu() parallel
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:20:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:53:11PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:01 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:50:56AM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 07:45:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:15:16AM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > > > In order to support parallel, rcu_state.n_online_cpus should be
> > > > > > atomic_dec()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to ask... What testing have you subjected this patch to?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This patch subjects to [1]. The series aims to enable kexec-reboot in
> > > > parallel on all cpu. As a result, the involved RCU part is expected to
> > > > support parallel.
> > >
> > > I understand (and even sympathize with) the expectation. But results
> > > sometimes diverge from expectations. There have been implicit assumptions
> > > in RCU about only one CPU going offline at a time, and I am not sure
> > > that all of them have been addressed. Concurrent CPU onlining has
> > > been looked at recently here:
> > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jymsaCPQ1PUDcfjIKm0UIbVdrJAaGX-6cXrmcfm0PRU/edit?usp=sharing
> > >
> > > You did us atomic_dec() to make rcu_state.n_online_cpus decrementing be
> > > atomic, which is good. Did you look through the rest of RCU's CPU-offline
> > > code paths and related code paths?
> >
> > I went through those codes at a shallow level, especially at each
> > cpuhp_step hook in the RCU system.
>
> And that is fine, at least as a first step.
>
> > But as you pointed out, there are implicit assumptions about only one
> > CPU going offline at a time, I will chew the google doc which you
> > share. Then I can come to a final result.
>
> Boqun Feng, Neeraj Upadhyay, Uladzislau Rezki, and I took a quick look,
> and rcu_boost_kthread_setaffinity() seems to need some help. As it
> stands, it appears that concurrent invocations of this function from the
> CPU-offline path will cause all but the last outgoing CPU's bit to be
> (incorrectly) set in the cpumask_var_t passed to set_cpus_allowed_ptr().
>
> This should not be difficult to fix, for example, by maintaining a
> separate per-leaf-rcu_node-structure bitmask of the concurrently outgoing
> CPUs for that rcu_node structure. (Similar in structure to the
> ->qsmask field.)
>
> There are probably more where that one came from. ;-)

And here is one more from this week's session.

The calls to tick_dep_set() and tick_dep_clear() use atomic operations,
but they operate on a global variable. This means that the first call
to rcutree_offline_cpu() would enable the tick and the first call to
rcutree_dead_cpu() would disable the tick. This might be OK, but it
is at the very least bad practice. There needs to be a counter
mediating these calls.

For more detail, please see the Google document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jymsaCPQ1PUDcfjIKm0UIbVdrJAaGX-6cXrmcfm0PRU/edit?usp=sharing

Thanx, Paul

> > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220822021520.6996-3-kernelfans@gmail.com/T/#mf62352138d7b040fdb583ba66f8cd0ed1e145feb
> > >
> > > Perhaps I am more blind than usual today, but I am not seeing anything
> > > in this patch describing the testing. At this point, I am thinking in
> > > terms of making rcutorture test concurrent CPU offlining parallel
> >
> > Yes, testing results are more convincing in this area.
> >
> > After making clear the implicit assumptions, I will write some code to
> > bridge my code and rcutorture test. Since the series is a little
> > different from parallel cpu offlining. It happens after all devices
> > are torn down, and there is no way to rollback.
>
> Very good, looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
>
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Need a deeper dive into this field. Hope to bring out something soon.
>
> Again, looking forward to seeing what you find!
>
> Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-31 18:16    [W:0.114 / U:0.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site