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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 11:31:00 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, riel@surriel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using
 never-online CPUs
Message-ID: <ZEmYFLKspo-rhyp4@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <83d037d1-ef12-4b31-a7b9-7b1ed6c3ae42@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZEmBy0H5T5vQJDUW@slm.duckdns.org>
 <1713f8f6-88d6-41f1-bbc6-045b2e017289@paulmck-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1713f8f6-88d6-41f1-bbc6-045b2e017289@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:17:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But the idea here is to spread the load of queueing the work as well as
> spreading the load of invoking the callbacks.
> 
> I suppose that I could allocate an array of ints, gather the online CPUs
> into that array, and do a power-of-two distribution across that array.
> But RCU Tasks allows CPUs to go offline with queued callbacks, so this
> array would also need to include those CPUs as well as the ones that
> are online.

Ah, I see, so it needs to make the distinction between cpus which have never
been online and are currently offline but used to be online.

> Given that the common-case system has a dense cpus_online_mask, I opted
> to keep it simple, which is optimal in the common case.
> 
> Or am I missing a trick here?

The worry is that on systems with actual CPU hotplugging, cpu_online_mask
can be pretty sparse - e.g. 1/4 filled wouldn't be too out there. In such
cases, the current code would end scheduling the work items on the issuing
CPU (which is what WORK_CPU_UNBOUND does) 3/4 of the time which probably
isn't the desired behavior.

So, I can initialize all per-cpu workqueues for all possible cpus on boot so
that rcu doesn't have to worry about it but that would still have a similar
problem of the callbacks not really being spread as intended.

I think it depends on how important it is to spread the callback workload
evenly. If that matters quite a bit, it probably would make sense to
maintain a cpumask for has-ever-been-online CPUs. Otherwise, do you think it
can just use an unbound workqueue and forget about manually distributing the
workload?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun