From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@purestorage.com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] sched/core: Prevent wakeup of ksoftirqd during idle load balance
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:17:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241108121748.tGlosO1b@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241030071557.1422-4-kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
On 2024-10-30 07:15:57 [+0000], K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Scheduler raises a SCHED_SOFTIRQ to trigger a load balancing event on
> from the IPI handler on the idle CPU. Since the softirq can be raised
> from flush_smp_call_function_queue(), it can end up waking up ksoftirqd,
> which can give an illusion of the idle CPU being busy when doing an idle
> load balancing.
>
> Adding a trace_printk() in nohz_csd_func() at the spot of raising
> SCHED_SOFTIRQ and enabling trace events for sched_switch, sched_wakeup,
> and softirq_entry (for SCHED_SOFTIRQ vector alone) helps observing the
> current behavior:
>
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ from nohz_csd_func
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.4.: sched_wakeup: comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=16 prio=120 target_cpu=000
> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_exit: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> <idle>-0 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=swapper/0 prev_pid=0 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=ksoftirqd/0 next_pid=16 next_prio=120
> ksoftirqd/0-16 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=ksoftirqd/0 prev_pid=16 prev_prio=120 prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/0 next_pid=0 next_prio=120
> ...
>
> ksoftirqd is woken up before the idle thread calls
> do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush() which can make the runqueue appear
> busy and prevent the idle load balancer from pulling task from an
> overloaded runqueue towards itself[1].
>
> Since the softirq raised is guranteed to be serviced in irq_exit() or
> via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(), set SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking
> the need to wakeup ksoftirq for idle load balancing.
>
> Following are the observations with the changes when enabling the same
> set of events:
>
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ for nohz_idle_balance
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: softirq_raise: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
>
> No unnecessary ksoftirqd wakeups are seen from idle task's context to
> service the softirq.
| Use __raise_softirq_irqoff() to raise the softirq. The SMP function call
| is always invoked on the requested CPU in an interrupt handler. It is
| guaranteed that soft interrupts are handled at the end.
You could extend it
| If the SMP function is invoked from an idle CPU via
| flush_smp_call_function_queue() then the HARD-IRQ flag is not set and
| raise_softirq_irqoff() wakes needlessly ksoftirqd because soft
| interrupts are handled before ksoftirqd get on the CPU.
This on its own is a reasonable optimisation. A different question would
be if flush_smp_call_function_queue() should pretend to be in-IRQ like a
regular IPI but…
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
> Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fcf823f-195e-6c9a-eac3-25f870cb35ac@inria.fr/ [1]
> Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> ---
> v3..v4:
>
> o New patch based on Sebastian's suggestion.
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index aaf99c0bcb49..2ee3621d6e7e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1244,7 +1244,18 @@ static void nohz_csd_func(void *info)
> rq->idle_balance = idle_cpu(cpu);
> if (rq->idle_balance) {
> rq->nohz_idle_balance = flags;
> - raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
> +
> + /*
> + * Don't wakeup ksoftirqd when raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ
> + * since the idle load balancer may mistake wakeup of
> + * ksoftirqd as a genuine task wakeup and bail out from
> + * load balancing early. Since it is guaranteed that
> + * pending softirqs will be handled soon, either on
> + * irq_exit() or via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(),
> + * raise SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking the need to
> + * wakeup ksoftirqd.
> + */
/*
* This is always invoked from an interrupt handler, simply raise the
* softirq.
*/
should be enough IMHO. But *I* would even skip that, since it is
obvious.
> + __raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
> }
> }
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-08 12:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-30 7:15 [PATCH v4 0/3] [PATCH v3 0/5] Idle Load Balance fixes and softirq enhancements K Prateek Nayak
2024-10-30 7:15 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] softirq: Allow raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ from SMP-call-function on RT kernel K Prateek Nayak
2024-11-08 12:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2024-10-30 7:15 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] sched/core: Remove the unnecessary need_resched() check in nohz_csd_func() K Prateek Nayak
2024-10-30 7:15 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] sched/core: Prevent wakeup of ksoftirqd during idle load balance K Prateek Nayak
2024-11-08 12:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2024-11-11 4:42 ` K Prateek Nayak
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=20241108121748.tGlosO1b@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=Julia.Lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=csander@purestorage.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/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®