From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f197.google.com (mail-pf0-f197.google.com [209.85.192.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF996B0026 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f197.google.com with SMTP id c65so1439502pfa.5 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0058.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [104.47.37.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f22-v6si164888plr.257.2018.03.28.06.36.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:36:05 +0300 From: Yury Norov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp: introduce kick_active_cpus_sync() Message-ID: <20180328133605.u7pftfxpn3jbqire@yury-thinkpad> References: <20180325175004.28162-1-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <20180325175004.28162-3-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <20180325192328.GI3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180325201154.icdcyl4nw2jootqq@yury-thinkpad> <20180326124555.GJ3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180326124555.GJ3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Chris Metcalf , Christopher Lameter , Russell King - ARM Linux , Mark Rutland , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 05:45:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:11:54PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:23:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:50:04PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > kick_all_cpus_sync() forces all CPUs to sync caches by sending broadcast IPI. > > > > If CPU is in extended quiescent state (idle task or nohz_full userspace), this > > > > work may be done at the exit of this state. Delaying synchronization helps to > > > > save power if CPU is in idle state and decrease latency for real-time tasks. > > > > > > > > This patch introduces kick_active_cpus_sync() and uses it in mm/slab and arm64 > > > > code to delay syncronization. > > > > > > > > For task isolation (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/3/589), IPI to the CPU running > > > > isolated task would be fatal, as it breaks isolation. The approach with delaying > > > > of synchronization work helps to maintain isolated state. > > > > > > > > I've tested it with test from task isolation series on ThunderX2 for more than > > > > 10 hours (10k giga-ticks) without breaking isolation. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 2 +- > > > > include/linux/smp.h | 2 ++ > > > > kernel/smp.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > mm/slab.c | 2 +- > > > > 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c > > > > index 2718a77da165..9d7c492e920e 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c > > > > @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text(void *addrs[], u32 insns[], int cnt) > > > > * synchronization. > > > > */ > > > > ret = aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(addrs[0], insns[0]); > > > > - kick_all_cpus_sync(); > > > > + kick_active_cpus_sync(); > > > > return ret; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h > > > > index 9fb239e12b82..27215e22240d 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/smp.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/smp.h > > > > @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ int smp_call_function_any(const struct cpumask *mask, > > > > smp_call_func_t func, void *info, int wait); > > > > > > > > void kick_all_cpus_sync(void); > > > > +void kick_active_cpus_sync(void); > > > > void wake_up_all_idle_cpus(void); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > @@ -161,6 +162,7 @@ smp_call_function_any(const struct cpumask *mask, smp_call_func_t func, > > > > } > > > > > > > > static inline void kick_all_cpus_sync(void) { } > > > > +static inline void kick_active_cpus_sync(void) { } > > > > static inline void wake_up_all_idle_cpus(void) { } > > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_UP_LATE_INIT > > > > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c > > > > index 084c8b3a2681..0358d6673850 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/smp.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/smp.c > > > > @@ -724,6 +724,30 @@ void kick_all_cpus_sync(void) > > > > } > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kick_all_cpus_sync); > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > + * kick_active_cpus_sync - Force CPUs that are not in extended > > > > + * quiescent state (idle or nohz_full userspace) sync by sending > > > > + * IPI. Extended quiescent state CPUs will sync at the exit of > > > > + * that state. > > > > + */ > > > > +void kick_active_cpus_sync(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + int cpu; > > > > + struct cpumask kernel_cpus; > > > > + > > > > + smp_mb(); > > > > + > > > > + cpumask_clear(&kernel_cpus); > > > > + preempt_disable(); > > > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { > > > > + if (!rcu_eqs_special_set(cpu)) > > > > > > If we get here, the CPU is not in a quiescent state, so we therefore > > > must IPI it, correct? > > > > > > But don't you also need to define rcu_eqs_special_exit() so that RCU > > > can invoke it when it next leaves its quiescent state? Or are you able > > > to ignore the CPU in that case? (If you are able to ignore the CPU in > > > that case, I could give you a lower-cost function to get your job done.) > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > What's actually needed for synchronization is issuing memory barrier on target > > CPUs before we start executing kernel code. > > > > smp_mb() is implicitly called in smp_call_function*() path for it. In > > rcu_eqs_special_set() -> rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() path, smp_mb__after_atomic() > > is called just before rcu_eqs_special_exit(). > > > > So I think, rcu_eqs_special_exit() may be left untouched. Empty > > rcu_eqs_special_exit() in new RCU path corresponds empty do_nothing() in old > > IPI path. > > > > Or my understanding of smp_mb__after_atomic() is wrong? By default, > > smp_mb__after_atomic() is just alias to smp_mb(). But some > > architectures define it differently. x86, for example, aliases it to > > just barrier() with a comment: "Atomic operations are already > > serializing on x86". > > > > I was initially thinking that it's also fine to leave > > rcu_eqs_special_exit() empty in this case, but now I'm not sure... > > > > Anyway, answering to your question, we shouldn't ignore quiescent > > CPUs, and rcu_eqs_special_set() path is really needed as it issues > > memory barrier on them. > > An alternative approach would be for me to make something like this > and export it: > > bool rcu_cpu_in_eqs(int cpu) > { > struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks, cpu); > int snap; > > smp_mb(); /* Obtain consistent snapshot, pairs with update. */ > snap = READ_ONCE(&rdtp->dynticks); > smp_mb(); /* See above. */ > return !(snap & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR); > } > > Then you could replace your use of rcu_cpu_in_eqs() above with Did you mean replace rcu_eqs_special_set()? > the new rcu_cpu_in_eqs(). This would avoid the RMW atomic, and, more > important, the unnecessary write to ->dynticks. > > Or am I missing something? > > Thanx, Paul This will not work because EQS CPUs will not be charged to call smp_mb() on exit of EQS. Lets sync our understanding of IPI and RCU mechanisms. Traditional IPI scheme looks like this: CPU1: CPU2: touch shared resource(); /* running any code */ smp_mb(); smp_call_function(); ---> handle_IPI() { /* Make resource visible */ smp_mb(); do_nothing(); } And new RCU scheme for eqs CPUs looks like this: CPU1: CPU2: touch shared resource(); /* Running EQS */ smp_mb(); if (RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR) set(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK); /* Still in EQS */ /* And later */ rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() { if (RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK) { /* Make resource visible */ smp_mb(); rcu_eqs_special_exit(); } } Is it correct? Yury