Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 20:28:26 +0200
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Alison Chaiken <achaiken@aurora.tech>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu/nocb: Add an option to ON/OFF an offloading from RT
 context
Message-ID: <YnldSkaWu40cVimj@pc638.lan>
References: <YnVLQozNFvgk3olP@pc638.lan>
 <20220506182425.GC1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <YnY33nq5jl6FLFOu@pc638.lan>
 <20220507223247.GK1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <CAEXW_YSyYRSRQwfMTJU1dowMaxrj6Daa17-BMx4syoPV05bZFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220508213222.GL1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <CAEXW_YQ9t8gxp9cKCpba+e4NZ6ohPr8jHxJYuqRBFRtvSDa0Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220509033740.GM1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <CAEXW_YSbWetMt2_-m4G9Nt5S8ybATihB+5FMJMMo3jKDG4pPjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220509181417.GO1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220509181417.GO1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:17:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:37 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 08:17:49PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 5:32 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >  [...]
> > > > > > Also, I think it is wrong to assume that a certain kind of system will
> > > > > > always have a certain number of callbacks to process at a time. That
> > > > > > seems prone to poor design due to assumptions which may not always be
> > > > > > true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who was assuming that?  Uladzislau was measuring rather than assuming,
> > > > > if that was what you were getting at.  Or if you are thinking about
> > > > > things like qhimark, your point is exactly why there is both a default
> > > > > (which has worked quite well for a very long time) and the ability to
> > > > > adjust based on the needs of your specific system.
> > > >
> > > > I was merely saying that based on measurements make assumptions, but
> > > > in the real world the assumption may not be true, then everything
> > > > falls apart. Instead I feel, callback threads should be RT only if 1.
> > > > As you mentioned, the time based thing. 2. If the CB list is long and
> > > > there's lot of processing. But instead, if it is made a CONFIG option,
> > > > then that forces a fixed behavior which may fall apart in the real
> > > > world. I think adding more CONFIGs and special cases is more complex
> > > > but that's my opinion.
> > >
> > > Again, exactly what problem are you trying to solve?
> > >
> > > From what I can see, Uladzislau's issue can be addressed by statically
> > > setting the rcuo kthreads to SCHED_OTHER at boot time.  The discussion
> > > is on exactly how RCU is to be informed of this, at kernel build time.
> > >
> > > > > > Can we not have 2 sets of RCU offload threads, one which operate at RT
> > > > > > and only process few callbacks at a time, while another which is the
> > > > > > lower priority CFS offload thread - executes whenever there is a lot
> > > > > > of CBs pending? Just a thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about if we start by solving the problems we know that we have?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why you would say that, because we are talking about
> > > > solving the specific problem Vlad's patch addresses, not random
> > > > problems. Which is that, Android wants to run expedited GPs, but when
> > > > the callback list is large, the RT nocb thread can starve other
> > > > things. Did I misunderstand the patch? If so, sorry about that but
> > > > that's what my email was discussing. i.e. running of CBs in RT
> > > > threads. I suck at writing well as I clearly miscommunicated.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > Why do you believe that this needs anything other than small adjustments
> > > the defaults of existing Kconfig options?  Or am I completely missing
> > > the point of your proposal?
> > >
> > > > > > Otherwise, I feel like we might be again proliferating CONFIG options
> > > > > > and increasing burden on the user to get it the CONFIG right.
> > > > >
> > > > > I bet that we will solve this without adding any new Kconfig options.
> > > > > And I bet that the burden is at worst on the device designer, not on
> > > > > the user.  Plus it is entirely possible that there might be a way to
> > > > > automatically configure things to handle what we know about today,
> > > > > again without adding Kconfig options.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, agreed.
> > >
> > > If I change my last sentence to read as follows, are we still in
> > > agreement?
> > >
> > >         Plus it is entirely possible that there might be a way to
> > >         automatically configure things to handle what we know about today,
> > >         again without adding Kconfig options and without changing runtime
> > >         code beyond that covered by Uladzislau's patch.
> > 
> > Yes, actually the automatic configuration of things is what I meant,
> > that's the "problem" I was referring to, where the system does the
> > right thing for a broader range of systems, without requiring the
> > users to find RCU issues and hand-tune them (that requires said users
> > to have tracing and debugging skills and get lucky finding a problem).
> > To be fair, I did not propose any solutions to such problems either,
> > it is just some ideas. I don't like knobs too much and I don't trust
> > users or system designers to get them right most of the time.
> > 
> > In that sense,  I don't think making rcuo threads run as RT or not
> > (which this patch does) is really fixing the problems. In one case,
> > you might have priority inversion, in another case you might cause
> > starvation. Probably what is needed is best of both worlds. That said,
> > I don't have better solutions right now than what I mentioned, which
> > is to assign priorities to the callbacks themselves and run them in
> > threads of different priorities.
> > 
> > For the record, I am not against the patch or anything like that (and
> > even if I was, I am not sure that it matters for merging :P)
> 
> Fair enough!
> 
> And for the record at this end, I would not be surprised if in 2032
> RCU offloaded callback invocation has sophisticated dynamic tuning of
> priorities and much else besides.  But one step at a time!  ;-)
> 
hh... It is hard to comment because i am a bit lost in this big conversation :)

What i have got so far. Joel does not like adding extra *_CONFIG
options, actually me too since it becomes more complicated thus
it requires more specific attention from users. I prefer to make
the code common but it is not possible sometimes to make it common,
because we have different kind of kernels and workloads.

From the other hand the patch splits the BOOSTING logic into two peaces
because driving the grace periods kthreads in RT priority is not a big
issue because their run-times are short. Whereas running the "kthreads-callbacks"
in the RT context can be long so we end up in throttled situation for
other workloads.

I see that Paul would like to keep it for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, because it
was mainly designed for that kind of kernels. So we can align with Alison
patch and her decision, so i do not see any issues. So far RT folk seems
does not mind in having "callback-kthreads" as SCHED_FIFO :)

Do you agree with start from keeping it ON for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT conf.
by default and OFF for other cases?

--
Uladzislau Rezki