Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1341548

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/14] documentation: Explain how RCU's combining tree fights contention

Show all headers | View raw

This commit adds a couple of paragraphs to the description of RCU's
combining tree explaining how the combining tree keeps lock contention
acceptably low, despite RCU grace periods being global operations.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 .../Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html    | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 .../Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.htmlx   | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
index ba9fbb5177f6..d15744b87b99 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
@@ -100,6 +100,29 @@ On the other hand, you can set <tt>CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT</tt> to be
 as small as 2 if you wish, which would permit only 16 CPUs, which
 is useful for testing.
 
+</p><p>This multi-level combining tree allows us to get most of the
+performance and scalability
+benefits of partitioning, even though RCU grace-period detection is
+inherently a global operation.
+The trick here is that only the last CPU to report a quiescent state
+into a given <tt>rcu_node</tt> structure need advance to the <tt>rcu_node</tt>
+structure at the next level up the tree.
+This means that at the leaf-level <tt>rcu_node</tt> structure, only
+one access out of sixteen will progress up the tree.
+For the internal <tt>rcu_node</tt> structures, the situation is even
+more extreme:  Only one access out of sixty-four will progress up
+the tree.
+Because the vast majority of the CPUs do not progress up the tree,
+the lock contention remains roughly constant up the tree.
+No matter how many CPUs there are in the system, at most 64 quiescent-state
+reports per grace period will progress all the way to the root
+<tt>rcu_node</tt> structure, thus ensuring that the lock contention
+on that root <tt>rcu_node</tt> structure remains acceptably low.
+
+</p><p>In effect, the combining tree acts like a big shock absorber,
+keeping lock contention under control at all tree levels regardless
+of the level of loading on the system.
+
 </p><p>The Linux kernel actually supports multiple flavors of RCU
 running concurrently, so RCU builds separate data structures for each
 flavor.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.htmlx
index c08fd8e9574a..8e88e3e7e2ef 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.htmlx
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.htmlx
@@ -121,6 +121,29 @@ On the other hand, you can set <tt>CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT</tt> to be
 as small as 2 if you wish, which would permit only 16 CPUs, which
 is useful for testing.
 
+</p><p>This multi-level combining tree allows us to get most of the
+performance and scalability
+benefits of partitioning, even though RCU grace-period detection is
+inherently a global operation.
+The trick here is that only the last CPU to report a quiescent state
+into a given <tt>rcu_node</tt> structure need advance to the <tt>rcu_node</tt>
+structure at the next level up the tree.
+This means that at the leaf-level <tt>rcu_node</tt> structure, only
+one access out of sixteen will progress up the tree.
+For the internal <tt>rcu_node</tt> structures, the situation is even
+more extreme:  Only one access out of sixty-four will progress up
+the tree.
+Because the vast majority of the CPUs do not progress up the tree,
+the lock contention remains roughly constant up the tree.
+No matter how many CPUs there are in the system, at most 64 quiescent-state
+reports per grace period will progress all the way to the root
+<tt>rcu_node</tt> structure, thus ensuring that the lock contention
+on that root <tt>rcu_node</tt> structure remains acceptably low.
+
+</p><p>In effect, the combining tree acts like a big shock absorber,
+keeping lock contention under control at all tree levels regardless
+of the level of loading on the system.
+
 </p><p>The Linux kernel actually supports multiple flavors of RCU
 running concurrently, so RCU builds separate data structures for each
 flavor.
-- 
2.5.2

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/14] Documentation updates for 4.6 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/14] documentation:  Add real-time requirements from CPU-bound workloads "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/14] documentation: Clarify compiler store-fusion example "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/14] documentation: Document illegality of call_rcu() from offline CPUs "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/14] documentation: Distinguish between local and global transitivity "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/14] documentation: Remove obsolete reference to RCU-protected indexes "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/14] documentation:  Add alternative release-acquire outcome "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/14] documentation: Transitivity is not cumulativity "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/14] documentation: Add synchronize_rcu_mult() to the requirements "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:10 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/14] documentation: Explain how RCU's combining tree fights contention "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:20 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/14] documentation: Explain why rcu_read_lock() needs no barrier() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:20 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/14] documentation: Fix memory-barriers.txt section references "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:20 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency and identical stores "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control  dependency and identical stores Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2016-02-24 22:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency  and identical stores "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 22:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency  and identical stores Jianyu Zhan <nasa4836@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 07:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency  and identical stores "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-25 15:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency  and identical stores Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-25 09:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency  and identical stores "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-25 15:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency  and identical stores Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-25 15:50 +0100
              Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] documentation: Fix control dependency  and identical stores "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-25 16:50 +0100
  [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/14] documentation: Subsequent writes ordered by rcu_dereference() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 06:20 +0100

csiph-web