Received: by 2002:a25:824b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d11csp721511ybn; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 05:15:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/6pLBo3E/2qSUI6R/aOu8aU+aABCNxj8ThefWn9E/dbSeo5kIPwA6RdI6U1PS3RpWQbZh X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:a48:: with SMTP id bt8mr3390107edb.298.1570018547105; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 05:15:47 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1570018547; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=IEAULyzxgBPtaM/NPWSbSp1IPQ3iYZx13Pzyev4nTvTNpYla/pXtN8kR0NI3BIdmGz n7H6jXOaiwQKtktKSYchn6QUFKhkxzqaINjbLq429mY8ETdRRTRxXXuULl7SrUQX4Obd wR6JdCIF+4hvOhemtEfEpMl+dkIa0a7yaAZ/ISG/T09C9PXXTiBvsvHDy8iTrDCLdhCc l2X3S4MBAwXjESTUXgT2c5MFigTuhhZchFC+kfK6QymsqV3GHqIAsyMbuadGbm/NWrpW n3eWvGwFmhWQluX/ZeLhQ8qM/C7xdr5EZMqq+PDJP55Qac8F/xk87Bnys6xxfQ7z3tNu OGvw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=sKHdtd6mGJNcyFI2yvZtCeXd7MuP5lZ7xh/lnoggR+Q=; b=XsniMnSKIwMjTGegWpXv3cfZcsbRa6TzXQU2UXfuJ/DJS9JmubrA9hPaZGOfk+dqvO zkl5ecYpDLHWpxOLJunSYStmrpVX5DWCA3UA/YJxGyYntqvOM8x2Ne3dv0JfxzVu1/we Z03XsYReX+Dom7yIfKhfUVxIdQE7qnTkubhgtVLfnCji2fHqftzro7PCXJRbjHs8c+N9 ySQKa+Onk+ylHFsVALh78eLcnAeezHtMac+Mk6YdBM1F7ac/giSMV8LObXjgB0Q70Avk tLLsaoKRzSw10arol0giqUL7xC/rQt2BGHoc45yzrMCIcf/xbu6JG/crEGOoK1Vn76jP Oe+Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j14si10374858ejf.53.2019.10.02.05.15.22; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 05:15:47 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728059AbfJBLW5 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:22:57 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:59087 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725917AbfJBLW5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:22:57 -0400 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iFcib-0000Wz-2Z; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 13:22:53 +0200 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 13:22:53 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dennis Zhou , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: [PATCH] percpu-refcount: Use normal instead of RCU-sched" Message-ID: <20191002112252.ro7wpdylqlrsbamc@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is a revert of commit a4244454df129 ("percpu-refcount: use RCU-sched insted of normal RCU") which claims the only reason for using RCU-sched is "rcu_read_[un]lock() … are slightly more expensive than preempt_disable/enable()" and "As the RCU critical sections are extremely short, using sched-RCU shouldn't have any latency implications." The problem with using RCU-sched here is that it disables preemption and the callback must not acquire any sleeping locks like spinlock_t on PREEMPT_RT which is the case with some of the users. Using rcu_read_lock() on PREEMPTION=n kernels is not any different compared to rcu_read_lock_sched(). On PREEMPTION=y kernels there are already performance issues due to additional preemption points. Looking at the code, the rcu_read_lock() is just an increment and unlock is almost just a decrement unless there is something special to do. Both are functions while disabling preemption is inlined. Doing a small benchmark, the minimal amount of time required was mostly the same. The average time required was higher due to the higher MAX value (which could be preemption). With DEBUG_PREEMPT=y it is rcu_read_lock_sched() that takes a little longer due to the additional debug code. Convert back to normal RCU. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior --- Benchmark https://breakpoint.cc/percpu_test.patch include/linux/percpu-refcount.h | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h b/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h index 7aef0abc194a2..390031e816dcd 100644 --- a/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h +++ b/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h @@ -186,14 +186,14 @@ static inline void percpu_ref_get_many(struct percpu_ref *ref, unsigned long nr) { unsigned long __percpu *percpu_count; - rcu_read_lock_sched(); + rcu_read_lock(); if (__ref_is_percpu(ref, &percpu_count)) this_cpu_add(*percpu_count, nr); else atomic_long_add(nr, &ref->count); - rcu_read_unlock_sched(); + rcu_read_unlock(); } /** @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ static inline bool percpu_ref_tryget(struct percpu_ref *ref) unsigned long __percpu *percpu_count; bool ret; - rcu_read_lock_sched(); + rcu_read_lock(); if (__ref_is_percpu(ref, &percpu_count)) { this_cpu_inc(*percpu_count); @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ static inline bool percpu_ref_tryget(struct percpu_ref *ref) ret = atomic_long_inc_not_zero(&ref->count); } - rcu_read_unlock_sched(); + rcu_read_unlock(); return ret; } @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static inline bool percpu_ref_tryget_live(struct percpu_ref *ref) unsigned long __percpu *percpu_count; bool ret = false; - rcu_read_lock_sched(); + rcu_read_lock(); if (__ref_is_percpu(ref, &percpu_count)) { this_cpu_inc(*percpu_count); @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ static inline bool percpu_ref_tryget_live(struct percpu_ref *ref) ret = atomic_long_inc_not_zero(&ref->count); } - rcu_read_unlock_sched(); + rcu_read_unlock(); return ret; } @@ -285,14 +285,14 @@ static inline void percpu_ref_put_many(struct percpu_ref *ref, unsigned long nr) { unsigned long __percpu *percpu_count; - rcu_read_lock_sched(); + rcu_read_lock(); if (__ref_is_percpu(ref, &percpu_count)) this_cpu_sub(*percpu_count, nr); else if (unlikely(atomic_long_sub_and_test(nr, &ref->count))) ref->release(ref); - rcu_read_unlock_sched(); + rcu_read_unlock(); } /** -- 2.23.0