Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-151306-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <33295077-e969-427a-badb-3e29698f5cfb@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 12:16:52 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] cgroup/rstat: introduce ratelimited rstat flushing
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
 cgroups@vger.kernel.org, longman@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
 kernel-team@cloudflare.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, mhocko@kernel.org,
 Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
References: <171328983017.3930751.9484082608778623495.stgit@firesoul>
 <171328990014.3930751.10674097155895405137.stgit@firesoul>
 <CAJD7tkbZAj3UQSHbu3kj1NG4QDowXWrohG4XM=7cX_a=QL-Shg@mail.gmail.com>
 <72e4a55e-a246-4e28-9d2e-d4f1ef5637c2@kernel.org>
 <CAJD7tkbNvo4nDek5HV7rpZRbARE7yc3y=ufVY5WMBkNH6oL4Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkbNvo4nDek5HV7rpZRbARE7yc3y=ufVY5WMBkNH6oL4Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 18/04/2024 23.00, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 4:00 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer<hawk@kernel.org>  wrote:
>> On 18/04/2024 04.21, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:51 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer<hawk@kernel.org>  wrote:
>>>> This patch aims to reduce userspace-triggered pressure on the global
>>>> cgroup_rstat_lock by introducing a mechanism to limit how often reading
>>>> stat files causes cgroup rstat flushing.
>>>>
[...]

> Taking a step back, I think this series is trying to address two
> issues in one go: interrupt handling latency and lock contention.

Yes, patch 2 and 3 are essentially independent and address two different 
aspects.

> While both are related because reducing flushing reduces irq
> disablement, I think it would be better if we can fix that issue
> separately with a more fundamental solution (e.g. using a mutex or
> dropping the lock at each CPU boundary).
> 
> After that, we can more clearly evaluate the lock contention problem
> with data purely about flushing latency, without taking into
> consideration the irq handling problem.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?

Yes, make sense.

So, you are suggesting we start with the mutex change? (patch 2)
(which still needs some adjustments/tuning)

This make sense to me, as there are likely many solutions to reducing
the pressure on the lock.

With the tracepoint patch in-place, I/we can measure the pressure on the
lock, and I plan to do this across our CF fleet.  Then we can slowly
work on improving lock contention and evaluate this on our fleets.

--Jesper
p.s.
Setting expectations:
  - Going on vacation today, so will resume work after 29th April.