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:   Sat, 13 Oct 2018 06:48:13 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Use cpus_read_lock() while looking at
 cpu_online_mask
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20180910135615.tr3cvipwbhq6xug4@linutronix.de>
 <20180911160532.GJ4225@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180911162142.cc3vgook2gctus4c@linutronix.de>
 <20180911170222.GO4225@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180919205521.GE902964@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20180919221140.GH4222@linux.ibm.com>
 <20181012184114.w332lnkc34evd4sm@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181012184114.w332lnkc34evd4sm@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20181013134813.GD2674@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 08:41:15PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-09-19 15:11:40 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 01:55:21PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Unbound workqueue is NUMA-affine by default, so using it by default
> > > might not harm anything.
> > 
> > OK, so the above workaround would function correctly on -rt, thank you!
> > 
> > Sebastian, is there a counterpart to CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT already in
> > mainline?  If so, I would be happy to make mainline safe for -rt.
> 
> Now that I stumbled upon it again, I noticed that I never replied here.
> Sorry for that.
> 
> Let me summarize:
> sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() used
> 	queue_work_on(rnp->grplo, rcu_par_gp_wq, &rnp->rew.rew_work);
> 
> which was changed in commit fcc6354365015 ("rcu: Make expedited GPs
> handle CPU 0 being offline"). The commit claims that this is needed in
> case CPU0 is offline so it tries to find another CPU starting with the
> possible offline CPU. It might cross to another NUMA node but that is
> not really a problem, it just tries to remain on the "local NUMA node".
> 
> After that commit, the code invokes queue_work_on() within a
> preempt_disable() section because it can't use cpus_read_lock() to
> ensure that the CPU won't go offline in the middle of testing (and
> preempt_disable() does the trick).
> For RT reasons I would like to get rid of queue_work_on() within the
> preempt_disable() section.
> Tejun said that enqueueing an item on an unbound workqueue is NUMA
> affine.
> 
> I figured out that enqueueing an item on an offline CPU is not a problem
> and it will pop up on a "random" CPU which means it will be carried out
> asap and will not wait until the CPU gets back online. Therefore I don't
> understand the commit fcc6354365015.
> 
> May I suggest the following change? It will enqueue the work item on
> the first CPU on the NUMA node and the "unbound" part of the work queue
> ensures that a CPU of that NUMA node will perform the work.
> This is mostly a revert of fcc6354365015 except that the workqueue
> gained the WQ_UNBOUND flag.

My concern would be that it would queue it by default for the current
CPU, which would serialize the processing, losing the concurrency of
grace-period initialization.  But that was a long time ago, and perhaps
workqueues have changed.  So, have you tried using rcuperf to test the
update performance on a large system?

If this change does not impact performance on an rcuperf test, why not
send me a formal patch with Signed-off-by and commit log (including
performance testing results)?  I will then apply it, it will be exposed
to 0day and eventually -next testing, and if no problems arise, it will go
to mainline, perhaps as soon as the merge window after the upcoming one.

Fair enough?

							Thanx, Paul

> ------------------>8----
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 0b760c1369f76..94d6c50c4e796 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4162,7 +4162,7 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
>  	/* Create workqueue for expedited GPs and for Tree SRCU. */
>  	rcu_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
>  	WARN_ON(!rcu_gp_wq);
> -	rcu_par_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_par_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> +	rcu_par_gp_wq = alloc_workqueue("rcu_par_gp", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
>  	WARN_ON(!rcu_par_gp_wq);
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> index 0b2c2ad69629c..a0486414edb40 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> @@ -472,7 +472,6 @@ static void sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus(struct work_struct *wp)
>  static void sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(struct rcu_state *rsp,
>  				     smp_call_func_t func)
>  {
> -	int cpu;
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
>  
>  	trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, rcu_exp_gp_seq_endval(rsp), TPS("reset"));
> @@ -494,13 +493,7 @@ static void sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus(struct rcu_state *rsp,
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  		INIT_WORK(&rnp->rew.rew_work, sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus);
> -		preempt_disable();
> -		cpu = cpumask_next(rnp->grplo - 1, cpu_online_mask);
> -		/* If all offline, queue the work on an unbound CPU. */
> -		if (unlikely(cpu > rnp->grphi))
> -			cpu = WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
> -		queue_work_on(cpu, rcu_par_gp_wq, &rnp->rew.rew_work);
> -		preempt_enable();
> +		queue_work_on(rnp->grplo, rcu_par_gp_wq, &rnp->rew.rew_work);
>  		rnp->exp_need_flush = true;
>  	}
>  
> 
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> Sebastian
>