mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®