mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Olivier Dion <odion@efficios.com>,
	<michael.christie@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 2/2] sched: Fix performance regression introduced by mm_cid
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:56:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230420095610.GA153295@ziqianlu-desk2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230419155012.63901-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:50:12AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Introduce per-mm/cpu current concurrency id (mm_cid) to fix a PostgreSQL
> sysbench regression reported by Aaron Lu.

mm_cid_get() dropped to 5.x% after I disable CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, using
__this_cpu_X() doesn't help, I suppose that is because __this_cpu_X()
still needs to fetch mm->pcpu_cid.

Annotate mm_cid_get():

       │     static inline int mm_cid_get(struct mm_struct *mm)
       │     {
  0.05 │       push   %rbp
  0.02 │       mov    %rsp,%rbp
       │       push   %r15
       │       push   %r14
       │       push   %r13
       │       push   %r12
       │       push   %rbx
  0.02 │       sub    $0x10,%rsp
       │     struct mm_cid __percpu *pcpu_cid = mm->pcpu_cid;
 71.30 │       mov    0x60(%rdi),%r12
       │     struct cpumask *cpumask;
       │     int cid;
       │
       │     lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
       │     cpumask = mm_cidmask(mm);
       │     cid = __this_cpu_read(pcpu_cid->cid);
 28.44 │       mov    %gs:0x8(%r12),%edx
       │     if (mm_cid_is_valid(cid)) {


sched_mm_cid_migrate_to() is 4.x% and its annotation :

       │     dst_pcpu_cid = per_cpu_ptr(mm->pcpu_cid, cpu_of(dst_rq));
       │       mov     -0x30(%rbp),%rax
 54.53 │       mov     0x60(%r13),%rbx
 19.61 │       movslq  0xaf0(%rax),%r15

The reason why accessing mm->pcpu_cid is so costly is still a myth to
me...

BTW, I used below diff to mitigate the incorrect rq lock issue I
described in my reply to v8:

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index c6e2dd8f4ee3..f16418731866 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -11662,7 +11662,7 @@ void sched_mm_cid_migrate_to(struct rq *dst_rq, struct task_struct *t)
 		return;
 	}
 	/* Move src_cid to dst cpu. */
-	mm_cid_snapshot_time(mm);
+	mm_cid_snapshot_time(mm, cpu_of(dst_rq));
 	WRITE_ONCE(dst_pcpu_cid->cid, src_cid);
 }
 
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index d1d470441422..8b6a0c8ed3d1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -3348,12 +3348,13 @@ static inline int __mm_cid_try_get(struct mm_struct *mm)
  * Save a snapshot of the current runqueue time of this cpu
  * with the per-cpu cid value, allowing to estimate how recently it was used.
  */
-static inline void mm_cid_snapshot_time(struct mm_struct *mm)
+static inline void mm_cid_snapshot_time(struct mm_struct *mm, int cpu)
 {
-	struct rq *rq = this_rq();
+	struct mm_cid *pcpu_cid = per_cpu_ptr(mm->pcpu_cid, cpu);
+	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
 
 	lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
-	__this_cpu_write(mm->pcpu_cid->time, rq->clock);
+	WRITE_ONCE(pcpu_cid->time, rq->clock);
 }
 
 static inline int __mm_cid_get(struct mm_struct *mm)
@@ -3404,7 +3405,7 @@ static inline int __mm_cid_get(struct mm_struct *mm)
 unlock:
 	raw_spin_unlock(&cid_lock);
 end:
-	mm_cid_snapshot_time(mm);
+	mm_cid_snapshot_time(mm, raw_smp_processor_id());
 	return cid;
 }
 
@@ -3419,7 +3420,7 @@ static inline int mm_cid_get(struct mm_struct *mm)
 	cpumask = mm_cidmask(mm);
 	cid = __this_cpu_read(pcpu_cid->cid);
 	if (mm_cid_is_valid(cid)) {
-		mm_cid_snapshot_time(mm);
+		mm_cid_snapshot_time(mm, raw_smp_processor_id());
 		return cid;
 	}
 	if (mm_cid_is_lazy_put(cid)) {
@@ -3467,7 +3468,7 @@ static inline void switch_mm_cid(struct task_struct *prev,
 		 */
 	}
 	if (prev->mm_cid_active) {
-		mm_cid_snapshot_time(prev->mm);
+		mm_cid_snapshot_time(prev->mm, raw_smp_processor_id());
 		mm_cid_put_lazy(prev);
 		prev->mm_cid = -1;
 	}

  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-20  9:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-19 15:50 [RFC PATCH v9 1/2] sched: Fix: Handle target_cpu offlining in active_load_balance_cpu_stop Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-04-19 15:50 ` [RFC PATCH v9 2/2] sched: Fix performance regression introduced by mm_cid Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-04-20  9:56   ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2023-04-20 12:41     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-04-20 12:50       ` Aaron Lu
2023-04-20 13:10         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-04-20 13:35           ` Aaron Lu
2023-04-20 13:54             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-04-20 14:18               ` Aaron Lu
2023-04-20 14:39                 ` Aaron Lu
2023-04-20 14:41                   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-04-20 14:35               ` Mathieu Desnoyers

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230420095610.GA153295@ziqianlu-desk2 \
    --to=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=michael.christie@oracle.com \
    --cc=odion@efficios.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®