+samir

On 1/15/26 12:04 AM, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
Currently, rcu_normal_wake_from_gp is only enabled by default
on small systems(<= 16 CPUs) or when a user explicitly set it
enabled.

This patch introduces an adaptive latching mechanism:
  * Tracks the number of in-flight synchronize_rcu() requests
    using a new atomic_t counter(rcu_sr_normal_count);


is this atomic variable getting updated by multiple CPUs at the
same time? We had seen in past such updates tend to be very costly.

  * If the count exceeds RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR(64), it sets
    the rcu_sr_normal_latched, reverting new requests onto the
    scaled wait_rcu_gp() path;

  * The latch is cleared only when the pending requests are fully
    drained(nr == 0);

  * Enables rcu_normal_wake_from_gp by default for all systems,
    relying on this dynamic throttling instead of static CPU
    limits.

Suggested-by: Joel Fernandes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>
---
  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 293bbd9ac3f4..c42d480d6e0b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1631,17 +1631,21 @@ static void rcu_sr_put_wait_head(struct llist_node 
*node)
        atomic_set_release(&sr_wn->inuse, 0);
  }
-/* Enable rcu_normal_wake_from_gp automatically on small systems. */
-#define WAKE_FROM_GP_CPU_THRESHOLD 16
-
-static int rcu_normal_wake_from_gp = -1;
+static int rcu_normal_wake_from_gp = 1;
  module_param(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp, int, 0644);
  static struct workqueue_struct *sync_wq;
+#define RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR 64
+
+/* Number of in-flight synchronize_rcu() calls queued on srs_next. */
+static atomic_long_t rcu_sr_normal_count;
+static atomic_t rcu_sr_normal_latched;
+
  static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
  {
        struct rcu_synchronize *rs = container_of(
                (struct rcu_head *) node, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
+       long nr;
WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) &&
                !poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs->oldstate),
@@ -1649,6 +1653,15 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node 
*node)
/* Finally. */
        complete(&rs->completion);
+       nr = atomic_long_dec_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
+       WARN_ON_ONCE(nr < 0);
+
+       /*
+        * Unlatch: switch back to normal path when fully
+        * drained and if it has been latched.
+        */
+       if (nr == 0)
+               (void)atomic_cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 1, 0);
  }
static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -1794,7 +1807,14 @@ static bool rcu_sr_normal_gp_init(void)
static void rcu_sr_normal_add_req(struct rcu_synchronize *rs)
  {
+       long nr;
+
        llist_add((struct llist_node *) &rs->head, &rcu_state.srs_next);
+       nr = atomic_long_inc_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
+
+       /* Latch: only when flooded and if unlatched. */
+       if (nr >= RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR)
+               (void)atomic_cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 0, 1);
  }
/*
@@ -3268,7 +3288,8 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_normal(void)
trace_rcu_sr_normal(rcu_state.name, &rs.head, TPS("request")); - if (READ_ONCE(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp) < 1) {
+       if (READ_ONCE(rcu_normal_wake_from_gp) < 1 ||
+                       atomic_read(&rcu_sr_normal_latched)) {
                wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_hurry);
                goto trace_complete_out;
        }
@@ -4892,12 +4913,6 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
        sync_wq = alloc_workqueue("sync_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
        WARN_ON(!sync_wq);
- /* Respect if explicitly disabled via a boot parameter. */
-       if (rcu_normal_wake_from_gp < 0) {
-               if (num_possible_cpus() <= WAKE_FROM_GP_CPU_THRESHOLD)
-                       rcu_normal_wake_from_gp = 1;
-       }
-
        /* Fill in default value for rcutree.qovld boot parameter. */
        /* -After- the rcu_node ->lock fields are initialized! */
        if (qovld < 0)


Samir,
Could you please give this patch a try on 1000+ cpu system?

Specifically test time taken for SMT1 to SMT8 and SMT8 to SMT1 switching
time.


Uladzislau, Is there any specific testing(other than above) you are looking for?



Reply via email to