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:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 11:13:02 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/13] fold per-CPU vmstats remotely
Message-ID: <ZBrUruIsOjdaqiFv@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230320180332.102837832@redhat.com>
 <ZBilM1JR2HKElIR1@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <ZBiu8csaxB/zrOAS@tpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZBiu8csaxB/zrOAS@tpad>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 20-03-23 16:07:29, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:25:55PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 20-03-23 15:03:32, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > This patch series addresses the following two problems:
> > > 
> > > 1. A customer provided evidence indicating that a process
> > >    was stalled in direct reclaim:
> > > 
> > This is addressed by the trivial patch 1.
> > 
> > [...]
> > >  2. With a task that busy loops on a given CPU,
> > >     the kworker interruption to execute vmstat_update
> > >     is undesired and may exceed latency thresholds
> > >     for certain applications.
> > 
> > Yes it can but why does that matter?
> 
> It matters for the application that is executing and expects
> not to be interrupted.

Those workloads shouldn't enter the kernel in the first place, no?
Otherwise the in kernel execution with all the direct or indirect
dependencies (e.g. via locks) can throw any latency expectations off the
window.

> > > By having vmstat_shepherd flush the per-CPU counters to the
> > > global counters from remote CPUs.
> > > 
> > > This is done using cmpxchg to manipulate the counters,
> > > both CPU locally (via the account functions),
> > > and remotely (via cpu_vm_stats_fold).
> > > 
> > > Thanks to Aaron Tomlin for diagnosing issue 1 and writing
> > > the initial patch series.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Performance details for the kworker interruption:
> > > 
> > > oslat   1094.456862: sys_mlock(start: 7f7ed0000b60, len: 1000)
> > > oslat   1094.456971: workqueue_queue_work: ... function=vmstat_update ...
> > > oslat   1094.456974: sched_switch: prev_comm=oslat ... ==> next_comm=kworker/5:1 ...
> > > kworker 1094.456978: sched_switch: prev_comm=kworker/5:1 ==> next_comm=oslat ...
> > >  
> > > The example above shows an additional 7us for the
> > > 
> > >         oslat -> kworker -> oslat
> > > 
> > > switches. In the case of a virtualized CPU, and the vmstat_update
> > > interruption in the host (of a qemu-kvm vcpu), the latency penalty
> > > observed in the guest is higher than 50us, violating the acceptable
> > > latency threshold for certain applications.
> > 
> > I do not think we have ever promissed any specific latency guarantees
> > for vmstat. These are statistics have been mostly used for debugging
> > purposes AFAIK. I am not aware of any specific user space use case that
> > would be latency sensitive. Your changelog doesn't go into details there
> > either.
> 
> There is a class of workloads for which response time can be
> of interest. MAC scheduler is an example:
> 
> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10090368

Yes, I am not disputing low latency workloads in general. I am just
saying that you haven't really established a very sound justification
here. Of course there are workloads which do not want to conflict with
any in kernel house keeping. Those have to be configured and implemented
very carefully though. Vmstat as such should not collide with those
workloads as long as they do not interact with the kernel in a way
counters are updated. Is this hard or impossible to avoid? 

I can imagine that those workloads have an start up sequence where the
kernel is involved and counters updated so that deferred flushing could
interfere with the later and latency sensitive phase. Is that a real
problem in practice? Please tell us much more why we need to make the
vmstat code more complex.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs