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:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 23:07:15 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        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
Message-ID: <20181015150715.GA2422@tardis>
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>
 <20181013134813.GD2674@linux.ibm.com>
 <20181015144217.nu5cp5mxlboyjbre@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="opJtzjQTFsWo+cga"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181015144217.nu5cp5mxlboyjbre@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--opJtzjQTFsWo+cga
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Sebastian

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-10-13 06:48:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >=20
> > 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.=20
>=20
> but the code here is always using the first CPU of a NUMA node or did I
> miss something?
>=20

The thing is the original way is to pick one CPU for a *RCU* node to
run the grace-period work, but with your proposal, if a RCU node is
smaller than a NUMA node (having fewer CPUs), we could end up having two
grace-period works running on one CPU. I think that's Paul's concern.

Regards,
Boqun

> > So, have you tried using rcuperf to test the
> > update performance on a large system?
>=20
> Something like this:
> | tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --torture rcuperf --confi=
gs TREE
> | ----Start batch 1: Mon Oct 15 12:46:13 CEST 2018
> | TREE 142: Starting build. =E2=80=A6
> | =E2=80=A6
> | Average grace-period duration: 19952.7 microseconds
> | Minimum grace-period duration: 9004.51
> | 50th percentile grace-period duration: 19998.3
> | 90th percentile grace-period duration: 24994.4
> | 99th percentile grace-period duration: 30002.1
> | Maximum grace-period duration: 42998.2
> | Grace periods: 6560 Batches: 209 Ratio: 31.3876
> | Computed from rcuperf printk output.
> | Completed in 27 vs. 1800
> |=20
> | Average grace-period duration: 18700 microseconds
> | Minimum grace-period duration: 7069.2
> | 50th percentile grace-period duration: 18987.5
> | 90th percentile grace-period duration: 22997
> | 99th percentile grace-period duration: 28944.7
> | Maximum grace-period duration: 36994.5
> | Grace periods: 6551 Batches: 209 Ratio: 31.3445
> | Computed from rcuperf printk output.
> | Completed in 27 vs. 1800
>=20
> two runs patched followed by two runs without the patched:
> | Average grace-period duration: 19423.3 microseconds
> | Minimum grace-period duration: 8006.93
> | 50th percentile grace-period duration: 19002.8
> | 90th percentile grace-period duration: 23997.5
> | 99th percentile grace-period duration: 29995.7
> | Maximum grace-period duration: 37997.9
> | Grace periods: 6526 Batches: 208 Ratio: 31.375
> | Computed from rcuperf printk output.
> | Completed in 27 vs. 1800
> |=20
> | Average grace-period duration: 18822.4 microseconds
> | Minimum grace-period duration: 8348.15
> | 50th percentile grace-period duration: 18996.9
> | 90th percentile grace-period duration: 23000
> | 99th percentile grace-period duration: 27999.5
> | Maximum grace-period duration: 39001.9
> | Grace periods: 6540 Batches: 209 Ratio: 31.2919
> | Computed from rcuperf printk output.
> | Completed in 27 vs. 1800
>=20
> I think difference might come from cpufreq on the host. But in general,
> this is what you have been asking for or did you want to see something
> on the host (or an additional argument to the script)?
>=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > Fair enough?
> sure.
>=20
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> >=20
>=20
> Sebastian

--opJtzjQTFsWo+cga
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEj5IosQTPz8XU1wRHSXnow7UH+rgFAlvErRoACgkQSXnow7UH
+rgbOgf+NAmPB5Jt+P7zW4TjOubjn6wAUqTFGk95EWV+sc9FnYLwscM9TLQO3JxD
Zh8+8s53WQz8o1Fu+vBU07Mrnv0TCSVM7uNr1SlC3vI/uGXR0L93CmsYCl2n1ZnV
T5w/Y+BKtnHLYbSt9e32voIgSzdBccEFqn16tXF4WubNmWiC83nTL9Gupgp3UrNJ
guEZnYpvpPkpC3Q8VhJg54Hk3PZka9n79BPWJMYz3VC49778CZLft21Pw4MqAdit
XdUta7zP0sWMngDFRTYyQXZ0dKq0iY8WSlIM7DBLSDQUc4NEGEauvReaV3mbhfrM
/e0aZMhoLFm1Y3J0kozRwfSRjHDgBA==
=z+M5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--opJtzjQTFsWo+cga--