From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 rcu 08/16] percpu-refcount: Use call_rcu_flush() for atomic switch
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:04:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221122010421.3799681-8-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221122010408.GA3799268@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
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 callbacks. 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 on the
percpu refcounter's "per-CPU to atomic switch" code path, which
uses RCU when switching to atomic mode. The enqueued callback
wakes up waiters waiting in the percpu_ref_switch_waitq. Allowing
this callback to be lazy would result in unacceptable slowdowns for
users of per-CPU refcounts, such as blk_pre_runtime_suspend().
Therefore, make __percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic() use call_rcu_flush()
in order to revert to the old behavior.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>
---
lib/percpu-refcount.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/percpu-refcount.c b/lib/percpu-refcount.c
index e5c5315da2741..65c58a029297d 100644
--- a/lib/percpu-refcount.c
+++ b/lib/percpu-refcount.c
@@ -230,7 +230,8 @@ static void __percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic(struct percpu_ref *ref,
percpu_ref_noop_confirm_switch;
percpu_ref_get(ref); /* put after confirmation */
- call_rcu(&ref->data->rcu, percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu);
+ call_rcu_flush(&ref->data->rcu,
+ percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu);
}
static void __percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu(struct percpu_ref *ref)
--
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23
parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-22 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20221122010408.GA3799268@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221122010421.3799681-8-paulmck@kernel.org \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox