Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 23:03:25 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel.opensrc@gmail.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [tip/core/rcu,16/21] rcu: Add funnel locking to
 rcu_start_this_gp()
Message-ID: <20180512060325.GA53808@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <1524452624-27589-16-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1524452624-27589-16-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 08:03:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The rcu_start_this_gp() function had a simple form of funnel locking that
> used only the leaves and root of the rcu_node tree, which is fine for
> systems with only a few hundred CPUs, but sub-optimal for systems having
> thousands of CPUs.  This commit therefore adds full-tree funnel locking.
> 
> This variant of funnel locking is unusual in the following ways:
> 
> 1.	The leaf-level rcu_node structure's ->lock is held throughout.
> 	Other funnel-locking implementations drop the leaf-level lock
> 	before progressing to the next level of the tree.
> 
> 2.	Funnel locking can be started at the root, which is convenient
> 	for code that already holds the root rcu_node structure's ->lock.
> 	Other funnel-locking implementations start at the leaves.
> 
> 3.	If an rcu_node structure other than the initial one believes
> 	that a grace period is in progress, it is not necessary to
> 	go further up the tree.  This is because grace-period cleanup
> 	scans the full tree, so that marking the need for a subsequent
> 	grace period anywhere in the tree suffices -- but only if
> 	a grace period is currently in progress.
> 
> 4.	It is possible that the RCU grace-period kthread has not yet
> 	started, and this case must be handled appropriately.
> 
> However, the general approach of using a tree to control lock contention
> is still in place.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 94519c7d552f..d3c769502929 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1682,74 +1682,52 @@ static bool rcu_start_this_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
>  {
>  	bool ret = false;
>  	struct rcu_state *rsp = rdp->rsp;
> -	struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> -
> -	raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rnp);
> -
> -	/* If the specified GP is already known needed, return to caller. */
> -	trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startleaf"));
> -	if (need_future_gp_element(rnp, c)) {
> -		trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartleaf"));
> -		goto out;
> -	}
> +	struct rcu_node *rnp_root;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * If this rcu_node structure believes that a grace period is in
> -	 * progress, then we must wait for the one following, which is in
> -	 * "c".  Because our request will be noticed at the end of the
> -	 * current grace period, we don't need to explicitly start one.
> +	 * Use funnel locking to either acquire the root rcu_node
> +	 * structure's lock or bail out if the need for this grace period
> +	 * has already been recorded -- or has already started.  If there
> +	 * is already a grace period in progress in a non-leaf node, no
> +	 * recording is needed because the end of the grace period will
> +	 * scan the leaf rcu_node structures.  Note that rnp->lock must
> +	 * not be released.
>  	 */
> -	if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed) {
> -		need_future_gp_element(rnp, c) = true;
> -		trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleaf"));
> -		goto out;

Referring to the above negative diff as [1] (which I wanted to refer to later
in this message..)

> +	raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rnp);
> +	trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startleaf"));
> +	for (rnp_root = rnp; 1; rnp_root = rnp_root->parent) {
> +		if (rnp_root != rnp)
> +			raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp_root);
> +		if (need_future_gp_element(rnp_root, c) ||
> +		    ULONG_CMP_GE(rnp_root->gpnum, c) ||
> +		    (rnp != rnp_root &&
> +		     rnp_root->gpnum != rnp_root->completed)) {
> +			trace_rcu_this_gp(rnp_root, rdp, c, TPS("Prestarted"));
> +			goto unlock_out;

I was a bit confused about the implementation of the above for loop:

In the previous code (which I refer to in the negative diff [1]), we were
checking the leaf, and if the leaf believed that RCU was not idle, then we
were marking the need for the future GP and quitting this function. In the
new code, it seems like even if the leaf believes RCU is not-idle, we still
go all the way up the tree.

I think the big change is, in the above new for loop, we either bail of if a
future GP need was already marked by an intermediate node, or we go marking
up the whole tree about the need for one.

If a leaf believes RCU is not idle, can we not just mark the future GP need
like before and return? It seems we would otherwise increase the lock
contention since now we lock intermediate nodes and then finally even the
root. Where as before we were not doing that if the leaf believed RCU was not
idle.

I am sorry if I missed something obvious.

The other thing is we now don't have the 'Startedleaf' trace like we did
before. I sent a patch to remove it, but I think the removal of that is
somehow connected to what I was just talking about.. and I was thinking if we
should really remove it. Should we add the case for checking leaves only back
or is that a bad thing to do?

thanks,

- Joel


> +		}
> +		need_future_gp_element(rnp_root, c) = true;
> +		if (rnp_root != rnp && rnp_root->parent != NULL)
> +			raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp_root);
> +		if (!rnp_root->parent)
> +			break;  /* At root, and perhaps also leaf. */
>  	}
>  

[...]