From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, longman@redhat.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
kernel-team@cloudflare.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
mhocko@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] cgroup/rstat: convert cgroup_rstat_lock back to mutex
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 19:19:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZFnQK9CFofp5rxa7Mv9wYH2vWF=Bb28Dchupm8LRt7Aw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <171328989335.3930751.3091577850420501533.stgit@firesoul>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:51 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Since kernel v4.18, cgroup_rstat_lock has been an IRQ-disabling spinlock,
> as introduced by commit 0fa294fb1985 ("cgroup: Replace cgroup_rstat_mutex
> with a spinlock").
>
> Despite efforts in cgroup_rstat_flush_locked() to yield the lock when
> necessary during the collection of per-CPU stats, this approach has led
> to several scaling issues observed in production environments. Holding
> this IRQ lock has caused starvation of other critical kernel functions,
> such as softirq (e.g., timers and netstack). Although kernel v6.8
> introduced optimizations in this area, we continue to observe instances
> where the spin_lock is held for 64-128 ms in production.
>
> This patch converts cgroup_rstat_lock back to being a mutex lock. This
> change is made possible thanks to the significant effort by Yosry Ahmed
> to eliminate all atomic context use-cases through multiple commits,
> ending in 0a2dc6ac3329 ("cgroup: removecgroup_rstat_flush_atomic()"),
> included in kernel v6.5.
>
> After this patch lock contention will be less obvious, as converting this
> to a mutex avoids multiple CPUs spinning while waiting for the lock, but
> it doesn't remove the lock contention. It is recommended to use the
> tracepoints to diagnose this.
I will keep the high-level conversation about using the mutex here in
the cover letter thread, but I am wondering why we are keeping the
lock dropping logic here with the mutex?
If this is to reduce lock contention, why does it depend on
need_resched()? spin_needbreak() is a good indicator for lock
contention, but need_resched() isn't, right?
Also, how was this tested?
When I did previous changes to the flushing logic I used to make sure
that userspace read latency was not impacted, as well as in-kernel
flushers (e.g. reclaim). We should make sure there are no regressions
on both fronts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup/rstat.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c b/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c
> index ff68c904e647..a90d68a7c27f 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
>
> #include <trace/events/cgroup.h>
>
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cgroup_rstat_lock);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(cgroup_rstat_lock);
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(raw_spinlock_t, cgroup_rstat_cpu_lock);
>
> static void cgroup_base_stat_flush(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu);
> @@ -238,10 +238,10 @@ static inline void __cgroup_rstat_lock(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu_in_loop)
> {
> bool contended;
>
> - contended = !spin_trylock_irq(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> + contended = !mutex_trylock(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> if (contended) {
> trace_cgroup_rstat_lock_contended(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, contended);
> - spin_lock_irq(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> }
> trace_cgroup_rstat_locked(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, contended);
> }
> @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ static inline void __cgroup_rstat_unlock(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu_in_loop)
> __releases(&cgroup_rstat_lock)
> {
> trace_cgroup_rstat_unlock(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, false);
> - spin_unlock_irq(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> }
>
> /* see cgroup_rstat_flush() */
> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ static void cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> }
>
> /* play nice and yield if necessary */
> - if (need_resched() || spin_needbreak(&cgroup_rstat_lock)) {
> + if (need_resched()) {
> __cgroup_rstat_unlock(cgrp, cpu);
> if (!cond_resched())
> cpu_relax();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-18 2:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-16 17:51 [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup/rstat: global cgroup_rstat_lock changes Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-16 17:51 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] cgroup/rstat: add cgroup_rstat_lock helpers and tracepoints Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-16 21:36 ` Tejun Heo
2024-04-18 8:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-23 16:53 ` Simon Horman
2024-04-29 11:36 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-29 17:48 ` Simon Horman
2024-04-16 17:51 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] cgroup/rstat: convert cgroup_rstat_lock back to mutex Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-18 2:19 ` Yosry Ahmed [this message]
2024-04-18 9:02 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-18 14:49 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-04-18 20:39 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-04-19 13:15 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-19 16:11 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-04-19 19:21 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-04-18 20:38 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-04-16 17:51 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] cgroup/rstat: introduce ratelimited rstat flushing Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-18 2:21 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-04-18 11:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-18 15:49 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-04-18 21:00 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-04-18 21:15 ` Tejun Heo
2024-04-18 21:22 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-04-18 21:32 ` Tejun Heo
2024-04-19 10:16 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-04-19 19:25 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-04-16 21:38 ` [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup/rstat: global cgroup_rstat_lock changes Tejun Heo
2024-04-18 2:13 ` Yosry Ahmed
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='CAJD7tkZFnQK9CFofp5rxa7Mv9wYH2vWF=Bb28Dchupm8LRt7Aw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@cloudflare.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--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