Files
linux/lib
Joel Fernandes (Google) 343a72e5e3 percpu-refcount: Use call_rcu_hurry() for atomic switch
Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build
their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option.
This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order to
batch callbacks.  This means that a given RCU grace period covers more
callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing
the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which
can be a very good thing.  This is not a subtle effect: In some important
use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%.

This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload
callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot
parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.

Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do
nothing but free memory.  If the system is short on memory, a shrinker
will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness,
thus freeing their memory in short order.  Similarly, the rcu_barrier()
function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked,
will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete
in a timely manner.

However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option.
For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until
the newly queued callback is invoked.  It would not be a good for
synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system.
Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_hurry() instead of
call_rcu().  The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_hurry() callback on a
given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that
CPU.  After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks
might as well get full benefit from it.

Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a
call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and
feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach
to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_hurry() for the few places
where laziness is inappropriate.

And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one on the
percpu refcounter's "per-CPU to atomic switch" code path, which
uses RCU when switching to atomic mode.  The enqueued callback
wakes up waiters waiting in the percpu_ref_switch_waitq.  Allowing
this callback to be lazy would result in unacceptable slowdowns for
users of per-CPU refcounts, such as blk_pre_runtime_suspend().

Therefore, make __percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic() use call_rcu_hurry()
in order to revert to the old behavior.

[ paulmck: Apply s/call_rcu_flush/call_rcu_hurry/ feedback from Tejun Heo. ]

Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>
2022-11-30 13:16:40 -08:00
..
2022-05-09 17:20:37 -07:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2021-09-08 11:50:26 -07:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2021-05-06 19:24:12 -07:00
2022-09-26 12:19:12 -07:00
2018-08-16 12:14:42 -07:00
2021-01-21 14:06:00 -07:00
2022-03-07 12:48:35 -07:00
2021-08-19 09:02:55 +09:00
2022-09-01 18:04:43 +02:00
2022-04-22 21:30:57 +02:00
2021-01-03 20:05:18 -05:00
2022-03-07 12:48:35 -07:00
2022-04-29 14:38:01 -07:00
2022-07-10 13:55:49 -07:00
2022-10-03 14:03:21 -07:00
2021-08-19 09:02:55 +09:00
2022-10-03 14:03:22 -07:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2018-10-16 13:45:44 +02:00
2022-09-07 12:33:43 +01:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2022-10-03 17:34:32 -07:00
2021-09-17 13:52:17 +01:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2021-06-18 11:43:09 +02:00
2021-07-08 11:48:20 -07:00
2022-01-20 08:52:54 +02:00
2018-10-15 16:31:29 -04:00