Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 21:01:41 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Cc:     "frederic@kernel.org" <frederic@kernel.org>,
        "rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Add rnp->cbovldmask check in
 rcutree_migrate_callbacks()
Message-ID: <20220506040141.GA1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20220505155236.1559619-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
 <20220505192956.GX1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <PH0PR11MB5880A25078A7D4DBAB1267C2DAC59@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB5880A25078A7D4DBAB1267C2DAC59@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 12:40:09AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 11:52:36PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > Currently, the rnp's cbovlmask is set in call_rcu(). when CPU going 
> > offline, the outgoing CPU's callbacks is migrated to target CPU, the 
> > number of callbacks on the my_rdp may be overloaded, if overload and 
> > there is no call_rcu() call on target CPU for a long time, the rnp's 
> > cbovldmask is not set in time. in order to fix this situation, add
> > check_cb_ovld_locked() in rcutree_migrate_callbacks() to help CPU more 
> > quickly reach quiescent states.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
> 
> >Doesn't this get set right at the end of the current grace period?
> >Given that there is a callback overload, there should be a grace period in progress.
> >
> >See this code in rcu_gp_cleanup():
> >
> >		if (rcu_is_leaf_node(rnp))
> >			for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, rnp->cbovldmask) {
> >				rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> >				check_cb_ovld_locked(rdp, rnp);
> >			}
> >
> >So what am I missing here?  Or are you planning to remove the above code?
> 
> We only checked the overloaded rdp at the end of current grace period, for
> my_rdp overloaded cause by migration callbacks to it,  if the my_rdp overloaded,
> and the my_rdp->mynode 's cbovldmask  is empty,  the my_rdp overloaded may be
> not checked at end of the current grace period.

Very good!

> I have another question, why don't we call check_cb_ovld_locked() when rdp's n_cbs decreases.
> for example call check_cb_ovld_locked() in rcu_do_bacth(), not at the end of grace period.

The idea (as you noted above) is that it gets cleared at the end of each
grace period.  We could also clear it in rcu_do_batch() as you suggest,
but to make that change you would need to convince me that the extra
overhead and complexity would provide a useful benefit.  This will not
be easy.  ;-)

> >If so, wouldn't you also need to clear the indication for the CPU that is going offline, being careful to handle the case where the two CPUs have different leaf rcu_node structures?
> 
> Yes the offline CPU need to clear.

But again, the clearing happens at the end of the next grace period.
Here we lose (almost) nothing by leaving the bit set because the other
bit is set as well.

Another question, as long as we brought up rcu_do_batch().

Why have the local variable "empty" given that the local variable "count"
could be checked against zero?

In the meantime, I have queued your commit for v5.20, thank you and
good eyes!  As always, I could not resist the urge to wordsmith the
commit log, so could you please check it for errors?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

commit 5c36f04bd460246dd28c178ce5dce6fb02f898e1
Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Date:   Thu May 5 23:52:36 2022 +0800

    rcu: Add rnp->cbovldmask check in rcutree_migrate_callbacks()
    
    Currently, the rcu_node structure's ->cbovlmask field is set in call_rcu()
    when a given CPU is suffering from callback overload.  But if that CPU
    goes offline, the outgoing CPU's callbacks is migrated to the running
    CPU, which is likely to overload the running CPU.  However, that CPU's
    bit in its leaf rcu_node structure's ->cbovlmask field remains zero.
    
    Initially, this is OK because the outgoing CPU's bit remains set.
    However, that bit will be cleared at the next end of a grace period,
    at which time it is quite possible that the running CPU will still
    be overloaded.  If the running CPU invokes call_rcu(), then overload
    will be checked for and the bit will be set.  Except that there is no
    guarantee that the running CPU will invoke call_rcu(), in which case the
    next grace period will fail to take the running CPU's overload condition
    into account.  Plus, because the bit is not set, the end of the grace
    period won't check for overload on this CPU.
    
    This commit therefore adds a call to check_cb_ovld_locked() in
    check_cb_ovld_locked() to set the running CPU's ->cbovlmask bit
    appropriately.
    
    Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 9dc4c4e82db62..bcc5876c9753b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -4577,6 +4577,7 @@ void rcutree_migrate_callbacks(int cpu)
 	needwake = needwake || rcu_advance_cbs(my_rnp, my_rdp);
 	rcu_segcblist_disable(&rdp->cblist);
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_segcblist_empty(&my_rdp->cblist) != !rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&my_rdp->cblist));
+	check_cb_ovld_locked(my_rdp, my_rnp);
 	if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(my_rdp)) {
 		raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(my_rnp); /* irqs remain disabled. */
 		__call_rcu_nocb_wake(my_rdp, true, flags);