Thread (48 messages) 48 messages, 9 authors, 2013-10-23

Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 3/4] workqueue: Schedule work on non-idle cpu instead of current one

From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date: 2012-11-27 13:59:08
Also in: lkml

On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 19:18 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 27 November 2012 18:56, Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
A couple of things. The sched_select_cpu() is not cheap. It has a double
loop of domains/cpus looking for a non idle cpu. If we have 1024 CPUs,
and we are CPU 1023 and all other CPUs happen to be idle, we could be
searching 1023 CPUs before we come up with our own.
Not sure if you missed the first check sched_select_cpu()

+int sched_select_cpu(unsigned int sd_flags)
+{
+       /* If Current cpu isn't idle, don't migrate anything */
+       if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
+               return cpu;

We aren't going to search if we aren't idle.
OK, we are idle, but CPU 1022 isn't. We still need a large search. But,
heh we are idle we can spin. But then why go through this in the first
place ;-)

quoted
Also, I really don't like this as a default behavior. It seems that this
solution is for a very special case, and this can become very intrusive
for the normal case.
We tried with an KCONFIG option for it, which Tejun rejected.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't like adding KCONFIG options either. Best is to
get something working that doesn't add any regressions. If you can get
this to work without making *any* regressions in the normal case than
I'm totally fine with that. But if this adds any issues with the normal
case, then it's a show stopper.
quoted
To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with this approach. It seems to be
fighting a symptom and not the disease. I'd rather find a way to keep
work from being queued on wrong CPU. If it is a timer, find a way to
move the timer. If it is something else, lets work to fix that. Doing
searches of possibly all CPUs (unlikely, but it is there), just seems
wrong to me.
As Vincent pointed out, on big LITTLE systems we just don't want to
serve works on big cores. That would be wasting too much of power.
Specially if we are going to wake up big cores.

It would be difficult to control the source driver (which queues work) to
little cores. We thought, if somebody wanted to queue work on current
cpu then they must use queue_work_on().
As Tejun has mentioned earlier, is there any assumptions anywhere that
expects an unbounded work queue to not migrate? Where per cpu variables
might be used. Tejun had a good idea of forcing this to migrate the work
*every* time. To not let a work queue run on the same CPU that it was
queued on. If it can survive that, then it is probably OK. Maybe add a
config option that forces this? That way, anyone can test that this
isn't an issue.

-- Steve

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help