lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] smp: introduce kick_active_cpus_sync()
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:56:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:36:05PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 05:45:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:11:54PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:23:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:50:04PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > > > kick_all_cpus_sync() forces all CPUs to sync caches by sending broadcast IPI.
> > > > > > If CPU is in extended quiescent state (idle task or nohz_full userspace), this
> > > > > > work may be done at the exit of this state. Delaying synchronization helps to
> > > > > > save power if CPU is in idle state and decrease latency for real-time tasks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch introduces kick_active_cpus_sync() and uses it in mm/slab and arm64
> > > > > > code to delay syncronization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For task isolation (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/3/589), IPI to the CPU running
> > > > > > isolated task would be fatal, as it breaks isolation. The approach with delaying
> > > > > > of synchronization work helps to maintain isolated state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've tested it with test from task isolation series on ThunderX2 for more than
> > > > > > 10 hours (10k giga-ticks) without breaking isolation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > include/linux/smp.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > kernel/smp.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > mm/slab.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
> > > > > > index 2718a77da165..9d7c492e920e 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
> > > > > > @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text(void *addrs[], u32 insns[], int cnt)
> > > > > > * synchronization.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > ret = aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(addrs[0], insns[0]);
> > > > > > - kick_all_cpus_sync();
> > > > > > + kick_active_cpus_sync();
> > > > > > return ret;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
> > > > > > index 9fb239e12b82..27215e22240d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/smp.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/smp.h
> > > > > > @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ int smp_call_function_any(const struct cpumask *mask,
> > > > > > smp_call_func_t func, void *info, int wait);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void kick_all_cpus_sync(void);
> > > > > > +void kick_active_cpus_sync(void);
> > > > > > void wake_up_all_idle_cpus(void);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > @@ -161,6 +162,7 @@ smp_call_function_any(const struct cpumask *mask, smp_call_func_t func,
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static inline void kick_all_cpus_sync(void) { }
> > > > > > +static inline void kick_active_cpus_sync(void) { }
> > > > > > static inline void wake_up_all_idle_cpus(void) { }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_UP_LATE_INIT
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> > > > > > index 084c8b3a2681..0358d6673850 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/smp.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> > > > > > @@ -724,6 +724,30 @@ void kick_all_cpus_sync(void)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kick_all_cpus_sync);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * kick_active_cpus_sync - Force CPUs that are not in extended
> > > > > > + * quiescent state (idle or nohz_full userspace) sync by sending
> > > > > > + * IPI. Extended quiescent state CPUs will sync at the exit of
> > > > > > + * that state.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +void kick_active_cpus_sync(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + int cpu;
> > > > > > + struct cpumask kernel_cpus;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + smp_mb();
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + cpumask_clear(&kernel_cpus);
> > > > > > + preempt_disable();
> > > > > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > > > + if (!rcu_eqs_special_set(cpu))
> > > > >
> > > > > If we get here, the CPU is not in a quiescent state, so we therefore
> > > > > must IPI it, correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > But don't you also need to define rcu_eqs_special_exit() so that RCU
> > > > > can invoke it when it next leaves its quiescent state? Or are you able
> > > > > to ignore the CPU in that case? (If you are able to ignore the CPU in
> > > > > that case, I could give you a lower-cost function to get your job done.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > What's actually needed for synchronization is issuing memory barrier on target
> > > > CPUs before we start executing kernel code.
> > > >
> > > > smp_mb() is implicitly called in smp_call_function*() path for it. In
> > > > rcu_eqs_special_set() -> rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() path, smp_mb__after_atomic()
> > > > is called just before rcu_eqs_special_exit().
> > > >
> > > > So I think, rcu_eqs_special_exit() may be left untouched. Empty
> > > > rcu_eqs_special_exit() in new RCU path corresponds empty do_nothing() in old
> > > > IPI path.
> > > >
> > > > Or my understanding of smp_mb__after_atomic() is wrong? By default,
> > > > smp_mb__after_atomic() is just alias to smp_mb(). But some
> > > > architectures define it differently. x86, for example, aliases it to
> > > > just barrier() with a comment: "Atomic operations are already
> > > > serializing on x86".
> > > >
> > > > I was initially thinking that it's also fine to leave
> > > > rcu_eqs_special_exit() empty in this case, but now I'm not sure...
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, answering to your question, we shouldn't ignore quiescent
> > > > CPUs, and rcu_eqs_special_set() path is really needed as it issues
> > > > memory barrier on them.
> > >
> > > An alternative approach would be for me to make something like this
> > > and export it:
> > >
> > > bool rcu_cpu_in_eqs(int cpu)
> > > {
> > > struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks, cpu);
> > > int snap;
> > >
> > > smp_mb(); /* Obtain consistent snapshot, pairs with update. */
> > > snap = READ_ONCE(&rdtp->dynticks);
> > > smp_mb(); /* See above. */
> > > return !(snap & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Then you could replace your use of rcu_cpu_in_eqs() above with
> >
> > Did you mean replace rcu_eqs_special_set()?
>
> Yes, apologies for my confusion, and good show figuring it out. ;-)
>
> > > the new rcu_cpu_in_eqs(). This would avoid the RMW atomic, and, more
> > > important, the unnecessary write to ->dynticks.
> > >
> > > Or am I missing something?
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > This will not work because EQS CPUs will not be charged to call
> > smp_mb() on exit of EQS.
>
> Actually, CPUs are guaranteed to do a value-returning atomic increment
> of ->dynticks on EQS exit, which implies smp_mb() both before and after
> that atomic increment.
>
> > Lets sync our understanding of IPI and RCU mechanisms.
> >
> > Traditional IPI scheme looks like this:
> >
> > CPU1: CPU2:
> > touch shared resource(); /* running any code */
> > smp_mb();
> > smp_call_function(); ---> handle_IPI()
>
> EQS exit here, so implied
> smp_mb() on both sides of the
> ->dynticks increment.
>
> > {
> > /* Make resource visible */
> > smp_mb();
> > do_nothing();
> > }
> >
> > And new RCU scheme for eqs CPUs looks like this:
> >
> > CPU1: CPU2:
> > touch shared resource(); /* Running EQS */
> > smp_mb();
> >
> > if (RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR)
> > set(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK); /* Still in EQS */
> >
> > /* And later */
> > rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit()
> > {
> > if (RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK) {
> > /* Make resource visible */
> > smp_mb();
> > rcu_eqs_special_exit();
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Is it correct?
>
> You are missing the atomic_add_return() that is already in
> rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit(), and this value-returning atomic operation again
> implies smp_mb() both before and after. So you should be covered without
> needing to worry about RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK.
>
> Or am I missing something subtle here?

Ah, now I understand, thank you. I'll collect other comments for more, and
submit v2 with this change.

Yury

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-28 16:42    [W:0.048 / U:1.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site