Date:   Sun, 5 Mar 2023 20:30:33 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, peterz@infradead.org,
        jstultz@google.com, edumazet@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] softirq: avoid spurious stalls due to need_resched()
Message-ID: <20230306043033.GO1301832@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20230303133143.7b35433f@kernel.org>
 <87r0u3hqtw.ffs@tglx>
 <20230305224211.GN1301832@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <ZAUfCH7gk98FDtSI@lothringen>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZAUfCH7gk98FDtSI@lothringen>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:00:24AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 02:42:11PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 09:43:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Indeed, as you well know, CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y in combination with the
> > rcutree.use_softirq kernel boot parameter in combination with either the
> > nohz_full or rcu_nocbs kernel boot parameter and then the callbacks are
> > invoked within separate kthreads so that the scheduler has full control.
> > In addition, this dispenses with all of the heuristics that are otherwise
> > necessary to avoid invoking too many callbacks in one shot.
> > 
> > Back in the day, I tried making this the default (with an eye towards
> > making it the sole callback-execution scheme), but this resulted in
> > some ugly performance regressions.  This was in part due to the extra
> > synchronization required to queue a callback and in part due to the
> > higher average cost of a wakeup compared to a raise_softirq().
> > 
> > So I changed to the current non-default arrangement.
> > 
> > And of course, you can do it halfway by booting kernel built with
> > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n with the rcutree.use_softirq kernel boot parameter.
> > But then the callback-invocation-limit heuristics are still used, but
> > this time to prevent callback invocation from preventing the CPU from
> > reporting quiescent states.  But if this was the only case, simpler
> > heuristics would suffice.
> > 
> > In short, it is not hard to make RCU avoid using softirq, but doing so
> > is not without side effects.  ;-)
> 
> Right but note that, threaded or not, callbacks invocation happen
> within a local_bh_disable() section, preventing other softirqs from running.
> 
> So this is still subject to the softirq per-CPU BKL.

True enough!  But it momentarily enables BH after invoking each callback,
so the other softirq vectors should be able to get a word in.

							Thanx, Paul