From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
vschneid@redhat.com, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: scheduler performance regression since v6.11
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 11:00:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250522150035.GB1065351@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250522084844.GC31726@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:48:44AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 04:54:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:38:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 04:38:09PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3840cbe24cf0 - sched: psi: fix bogus pressure spikes from aggregation race
> > > >
> > > > With CONFIG_PSI enabled we call cpu_clock(cpu) now multiple times (up to
> > > > 4 times per task switch in my setup) in:
> > > >
> > > > __schedule() -> psi_sched_switch() -> psi_task_switch() ->
> > > > psi_group_change().
> > > >
> > > > There seems to be another/other v6.12 related patch(es) later which
> > > > cause(s) another 4% regression I yet have to discover.
> > >
> > > Urgh, let me add this to the pile to look at. Thanks!
> >
> > Does something like the compile tested only hackery below work?
>
> possibly better hackery :-)
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/psi.c b/kernel/sched/psi.c
> index 1396674fa722..8fb9d28f2bc8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/psi.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/psi.c
> @@ -136,6 +136,10 @@
> * cost-wise, yet way more sensitive and accurate than periodic
> * sampling of the aggregate task states would be.
> */
> +#include <linux/sched/clock.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> +#include <linux/psi.h>
> +#include "sched.h"
>
> static int psi_bug __read_mostly;
>
> @@ -172,6 +176,30 @@ struct psi_group psi_system = {
> .pcpu = &system_group_pcpu,
> };
>
> +static inline void psi_write_begin(int cpu)
> +{
> + struct psi_group_cpu *groupc = per_cpu_ptr(&system_group_pcpu, cpu);
> + write_seqcount_begin(&groupc->seq);
Ah right, since all the ancestor walks would ultimately end up at the
system's seq anyway. And always have, really.
It does stretch the critical section, of course. I ran perf bench
sched messaging to saturate all CPUs in state changes and then read a
pressure file 1000x. This is on a 32-way machine:
0.18% +1.34% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] collect_percpu_times
and annotation shows it's indeed retrying on the seq-read a bit more.
But that seems well within tolerance, and obviously worth it assuming
it fixes the cpu_clock() regression on the sched side.
At that point, though, it probably makes sense to move seq out of
psi_group_cpu altogether? More for clarity, really - it won't save
much right away given that deliberate 2-cacheline-layout.
/* Serializes task state changes against aggregation runs */
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(seqcount_t, psi_seq);
Otherwise, the patch looks great to me. Thanks for including a couple
of cleanups as well.
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-22 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-07 23:13 Chris Mason
2025-05-09 19:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-12 18:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-12 19:39 ` Chris Mason
2025-05-12 22:35 ` Chris Mason
2025-05-13 7:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-16 10:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-20 14:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-05-20 14:53 ` Chris Mason
2025-05-21 13:59 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-05-21 14:32 ` Chris Mason
2025-05-20 19:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-21 14:02 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-05-21 15:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-21 19:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-21 14:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-22 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-22 15:00 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2025-05-23 15:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-23 12:27 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2025-07-10 12:46 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/psi: Optimize psi_group_change() cpu_clock() usage tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
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=20250522150035.GB1065351@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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®