Re: CPU affinity behavior of liburcu call-rcu per-cpu worker threads
"Paul E. McKenney via lttng-dev" <[email protected]> Thu, 9 Jul 2026 14:45:18 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.lttng.lists.lttng-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <3573944e-3abc-48d7-aedf-3362ebd7ebe4@paulmck-laptop> |
On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 04:00:17PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > On 2026-07-09 14:48, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > I have a question related to liburcu per-cpu call-rcu worker threads. > > > > So far in the current liburcu releases no affinity is set when the > > worker threads are started. We have to wait for > > SET_AFFINITY_CHECK_PERIOD_MASK grace periods before the affinity is set > > (it takes about 2.5s in my benchmarks). > > > > This means that short-lived test programs will get poor CPU affinity > > for call-rcu worker threads at the beginning of their lifetime. So for > > short lived programs, this means poor performance. > > > > OTOH, if we have short-lived applications on a large machine, setting > > the affinity immediately when the worker thread is starting means > > we use CPU time on CPUs which may never be actually used by the > > application (no call-rcu activity), which can be detrimental to other > > use-cases as well. > > > > So I was wondering: is the choice of skipping setting the affinity > > on call-rcu worker thread startup done on purpose ? And if so, > > should we perhaps consider setting the affinity as soon as the > > worker thread is woken up for the first time rather than after > > SET_AFFINITY_CHECK_PERIOD_MASK grace periods ? My approach when I first implemented call_rcu() was that the typical application would have lots of reads and very few updates, so the default was a single call_rcu() thread shared by all worker threads. I allowed for manual configuration and affinity of call_rcu() threads for special-case high-update-rate applications. My hope was that we would be able to use per-CPU call_rcu() threads with something like rseq allowing the worker threads to move around arbitrarily but still getting good cache affinity in their interactions with the call_rcu() threads. Easy to say, I know! ;-) > I've implemented this compromise approach here: > > https://review.lttng.org/c/userspace-rcu/+/18257 call-rcu worker: set CPU affinity on first non-empty dequeue The idea being that the call_rcu() thread checks its partner and uses explicit affinity to follow it around? I am reminded of a DYNIX/ptx feature that allowed you to say that a pair of userspace threads were related, so that they should be migrated together. This idea did not go over well during the initial Linux-kernel scheduler discussions a quarter century back. ;-) I know! I know! Use sched_ext!!! (Sorry, couldn't resist...) Thanx, Paul > Feedback is welcome, > > Thanks! > > Mathieu > > > > > Note that there is a commit in liburcu changing this behavior right > > now, but it's not part of any release yet. I want to figure out the > > wanted behavior before releasing this change: > > > > commit 28f282af1905a1cf50ff9b5835b4cd9de4416ddf > > Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed Jul 1 12:49:43 2026 -0400 > > > > call_rcu: pin per-CPU worker at thread startup > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mathieu > > > > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > https://www.efficios.com