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, 17 Feb 2020 14:03:56 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@fb.com, 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, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 22/30] rcu: Don't flag non-starting GPs
 before GP kthread is running
Message-ID: <20200217220356.GY2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200214235536.GA13364@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200214235607.13749-22-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20200214225305.48550d6a@oasis.local.home>
 <20200215110111.GZ2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200215134208.GA9879@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200217152517.26cc11ea@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200217152517.26cc11ea@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 03:25:17PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 05:42:08 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > And does the following V2 look better?
> > 
> 
> For the issue I brought up, yes. But now I have to ask...
> 
> > @@ -1252,10 +1253,10 @@ static bool rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> >   */
> >  static void rcu_gp_kthread_wake(void)
> >  {
> > -	if ((current == rcu_state.gp_kthread &&
> > -	     !in_irq() && !in_serving_softirq()) ||
> > -	    !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) ||
> > -	    !rcu_state.gp_kthread)
> > +	struct task_struct *t = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_kthread);
> > +
> > +	if ((current == t && !in_irq() && !in_serving_softirq()) ||
> > +	    !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) || !t)
> 
> Why not test !t first? As that is the fastest operation in the if
> statement, and will shortcut all the other operations if it is true.
> 
> As I like to micro-optimize ;-), for or (||) statements, I like to add
> the fastest operations first. To me, that would be:
> 
> 	if (!t || READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) ||
> 	    (current == t && !in_irq() && !in_serving_softirq()))
> 		return;
> 
> Note, in_irq() reads preempt_count which is not always a fast operation.

And what is a day without micro-optimization of a slowpath?  :-)

OK, let's see...

Grace-period kthread wakeups are normally mediated by rcu_start_this_gp(),
which uses a funnel lock to consolidate concurrent requests to start
a grace period.  If a grace period is already in progress, it refrains
from doing a wakeup because that means that the grace-period kthread
will check for another grace period being needed at the end of the
current grace period.

Exceptions include:

o	The wakeup reporting the last quiescent state of the current
	grace period.

o	Emergency situations such as callback overloads and RCU CPU stalls.

So on a busy system that is not overloaded, the common case is that
rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked only once per grace period because there
is no emergency and there is a grace period in progress.  If this system
has short idle periods and a fair number of quiescent states, a reasonable
amount of idle time, then the last quiescent state will not normally be
detected by the grace-period kthread.  But workloads can of course vary.

The "!t" holds only during early boot.  So we could put a likely() around
the "t".  But more to the point, at runtime, "!t" would always be false,
so it really should be last in the list of "||" clauses.  This isn't
enough of a fastpath for a static branch to make sense.

The "!READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags)" will normally hold, though it is
false often enough to pay for itself.  Or has been in the past, anyway.
I suspect that access to the global variable rcu_state.gp_flags is not
always fast either.

So I am having difficulty talking myself into modifying this one given
the frequency of operations.

							Thanx, Paul