Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008 - 1:33 pm

On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 09:10:55PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:

For the grace-period latencies, I use the attached kernel
module.  This module simply times synchronize_rcu() to obtain
the grace-period performance.  I have similar modules for other
performance measures.

(Please note that this code was written for my own use only, others
may find the kernel-module parameter names to be quite obnoxious.
But yes, nreaders=1 will give you one synchronize_rcu() -update-
task.  What can I say? I used this module to collect data for
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/472/guniguntala.pdf, and was not
considering use by others.)

I would rather avoid decorating the RCU code with grace-period-latency
measurement code, since this can be done independently with a kernel
module, and I suspect that more people read the RCU code than measure
the grace-period latency.

All backends do implement rcu_batches_completed(), but its return
value has different units on different RCU implementations.  :-(


Hmmm...  I would expect that if you have some CPUs in dyntick idle mode.
But if I run treercu on an CONFIG_HZ_250 8-CPU Power box, I see 2.5
jiffies per grace period if CPUs are kept out of dyntick idle mode, and
4 jiffies per grace period if CPUs are allowed to enter dyntick idle mode.

Alternatively, if you were testing with multiple concurrent
synchronize_rcu() invocations, you can also see longer grace-period
latencies due to the fact that a new synchronize_rcu() must wait for an
earlier grace period to complete before starting a new one.

The 2.5 jiffies is expected when RCU is idle: the synchronize_rcu()
starts a new grace period immediately, it takes up to a jiffy for the
other CPUs do their scheduling-clock interrupt (which notices that the
grace period started), another jiffy for all the CPUs to do their
next scheduling-clock interrupt (which notices the quiescent state),
and on average a half jiffy for the initiating CPU to notice that the
grace period has completed.

I considered trying to trim an additional jiffy off of this grace-period
latency by having CPUs keep track of whether they were in a quiescent
state at the time that they noticed the start of a new grace period.
My attempts to do this ran afoul of races due to interrupt handlers
containing call_rcu(), but it might be possible for rcu_check_callbacks()
to record both the quiescent-state information and the grace-period
number.  But this needs more thought, as the race conditions are quite
subtle.

							Thanx, Paul


Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] scalable classic RCU implem ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Aug 22, 10:22 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] scalable classic RCU implem ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Aug 27, 11:28 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] scalable classic RCU implem ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Aug 27, 11:34 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 scalable classic RCU imp ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sat Aug 30, 12:38 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 scalable classic RCU imp ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Aug 31, 10:20 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 scalable classic RCU imp ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Aug 31, 10:55 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] v3 scalable classic RCU imp ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Aug 31, 12:23 pm)
[PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Sep 5, 8:29 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Andrew Morton, (Fri Sep 5, 12:33 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Sep 5, 4:04 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Andrew Morton, (Fri Sep 5, 4:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Sep 5, 9:16 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Sat Sep 6, 9:37 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Sep 7, 10:25 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Sep 15, 9:02 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Tue Sep 16, 9:52 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Sep 16, 10:30 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Tue Sep 16, 10:48 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Sep 16, 11:22 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Sun Sep 21, 4:09 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Sep 21, 2:14 pm)
[PATCH, RFC] v6 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Sep 23, 4:53 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v6 scalable classic RCU implementation, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Sep 25, 12:26 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v6 scalable classic RCU implementation, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Sep 25, 12:29 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v6 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Sep 25, 7:05 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v6 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Sep 25, 7:18 am)
[PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Oct 10, 9:09 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Sun Oct 12, 8:52 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Sun Oct 12, 3:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Mon Oct 13, 11:03 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Oct 14, 6:11 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Wed Oct 15, 1:13 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Oct 15, 8:26 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Gautham R Shenoy, (Fri Oct 17, 1:34 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Gautham R Shenoy, (Fri Oct 17, 8:35 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Oct 17, 8:43 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Fri Oct 17, 8:46 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Wed Oct 22, 11:41 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Oct 22, 2:02 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Wed Oct 22, 2:24 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Oct 27, 9:45 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Mon Oct 27, 12:48 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Oct 27, 4:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Mon Oct 27, 10:30 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Oct 28, 8:17 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Tue Oct 28, 10:21 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Oct 28, 10:35 am)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Sun Nov 2, 1:10 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Nov 3, 1:33 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Manfred Spraul, (Wed Nov 5, 12:48 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Nov 5, 2:27 pm)
[PATCH, RFC] v8 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Sat Nov 15, 4:20 pm)
Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Dec 8, 11:42 am)