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

  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®