On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:24:34AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In rcu_report_qs_rsp(), I added a pr_info() call testing if any of the above
> > conditions is true, in which case we can avoid calling wake_up(). It turns
> > out
> > that quite a few actually are. Most of the cases where we can avoid is
> > condition 2
> > above and condition 1 also occurs quite often. Condition 3 never happens.
> >
>
> A little more data. On an idle system there are about 2000 unnecessary
> wake_up() calls every 5 minutes with the most common trace being the
> follows:
>
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff8109f7c5>] rcu_report_qs_rnp+0x285/0x2c0
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff81838c09>] ?
> schedule_timeout+0x159/0x270
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff8109fa21>] force_qs_rnp+0x111/0x190
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff810a02c0>] ?
> synchronize_rcu_bh+0x50/0x50
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff810a2e5f>] rcu_gp_kthread+0x85f/0xa70
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff81086060>] ? __wake_up_sync+0x20/0x20
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff810a2600>] ? rcu_barrier+0x20/0x20
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff8106b4fb>] kthread+0xdb/0x100
> [<ffffffff8106b420>]?kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014] [<ffffffff81839dac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [<ffffffff8106b420>] ?kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180
>
> With rcutorture, there are about 2000 unnecessary wake_ups() every 3
> minutes with the most common trace being:
>
> [Fri Jul 25 02:18:30 2014] [<ffffffff8109f7c5>] rcu_report_qs_rnp+0x285/0x2c0
> [Fri Jul 25 02:18:30 2014] [<ffffffff81078b15>] ?
> __update_cpu_load+0xe5/0x140
> [<ffffffffa09dc230>] ?rcu_read_delay+0x50/0x80 [rcutorture]
> [<ffffffff810a3728>]rcu_process_callbacks+0x6b8/0x7e0
Good to see the numbers!!!
But to evaluate this analytically, we should compare the overhead of the
wake_up() with the overhead of the extra checks in rcu_gp_kthread_wake(),
and then compare the number of unnecessary wake_up()s to the number of
calls to rcu_gp_kthread_wake() added by this patch. This means that we
need more numbers.
For example, suppose that the extra checks cost 10ns on average, and that
a unnecessary wake_up() costs 1us on average, to that each wake_up()
is on average 100 times more expensive than the extra checks. Then it
makes sense to ask whether the saved wake_up() save more time than the
extra tests cost. Turning the arithmetic crank says that if more than 1%
of the wake_up()s are unnecessary, we should add the checks.
This means that if there are fewer than 200,000 grace periods in each
of the time periods, then your patch really would provide performance
benefits. I bet that there are -way- fewer than 200,000 grace periods in
each of the time periods, but why don't you build with RCU_TRACE and look
at the "rcugp" file in RCU's debugfs hierarchy? Or just periodically
print out the rcu_state ->completed field?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
