Re: [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

No, the right thing is to unf*ck the Xen braindamage and use eagerfpu as a workaround for the legacy hypervisor versions.

GFP_ATOMIC -> SIGKILL is definitely a NAK.

On March 16, 2014 8:13:05 PM PDT, Sarah Newman <srn@prgmr.com> wrote:
>On 03/10/2014 10:15 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 10/03/14 16:40, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2014 09:17 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>> math_state_restore() is called from the #NM exception handler.  It
>may
>>>> do a GFP_KERNEL allocation (in init_fpu()) which may schedule.
>>>>
>>>> Change this allocation to GFP_ATOMIC, but leave all the other
>callers
>>>> of init_fpu() or fpu_alloc() using GFP_KERNEL.
>>>
>>> And what the [Finnish] do you do if GFP_ATOMIC fails?
>> 
>> The same thing it used to do -- kill the task with SIGKILL.  I
>haven't
>> changed this behaviour.
>> 
>>> Sarah's patchset switches Xen PV to use eagerfpu unconditionally,
>which
>>> removes the dependency on #NM and is the right thing to do.
>> 
>> Ok. I'll wait for this series and not pursue this patch any further.
>
>Sorry, this got swallowed by my mail filter.
>
>I did some more testing and I think eagerfpu is going to noticeably
>slow things down. When I ran
>"time sysbench --num-threads=64 --test=threads run" I saw on the order
>of 15% more time spent in
>system mode and this seemed consistent over different runs.
>
>As for GFP_ATOMIC, unfortunately I don't know a sanctioned test here so
>I rolled my own. This test
>sequentially allocated math-using processes in the background until it
>could not any more.  On a
>64MB instance, I saw 10% fewer processes allocated with GFP_ATOMIC
>compared to GFP_KERNEL when I
>continually allocated new processes up to OOM conditions (256 vs 228.) 
>A similar test on a
>different RFS and a kernel using GFP_NOWAIT showed pretty much no
>difference in how many processes I
>could allocate. This doesn't seem too bad unless there is some kind of
>fragmentation over time which
>would cause worse performance.
>
>Since performance degradation applies at all times and not just under
>extreme conditions, I think
>the lesser evil will actually be GFP_ATOMIC.  But it's not necessary to
>always use GFP_ATOMIC, only
>under certain conditions - IE when the xen PVABI forces us to.
>
>Patches will be supplied shortly.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.