Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: Use a housekeeping CPU to wake up waiters
From: Petr Tesarik <hidden>
Date: 2026-01-07 07:50:15
Also in:
linux-rt-devel, lkml
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 17:04:05 -0500 Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:10:39 +0100 Petr Tesarik [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Avoid running the wakeup irq_work on an isolated CPU. Since the wakeup can run on any CPU, let's pick a housekeeping CPU to do the job. This change reduces additional noise when tracing isolated CPUs. For example, the following ipi_send_cpu stack trace was captured with nohz_full=2 on the isolated CPU: <idle>-0 [002] d.h4. 1255.379293: ipi_send_cpu: cpu=2 callsite=irq_work_queue+0x2d/0x50 callback=rb_wake_up_waiters+0x0/0x80 <idle>-0 [002] d.h4. 1255.379329: <stack trace> => trace_event_raw_event_ipi_send_cpu => __irq_work_queue_local => irq_work_queue => ring_buffer_unlock_commit => trace_buffer_unlock_commit_regs => trace_event_buffer_commit => trace_event_raw_event_x86_irq_vector => __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt => sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt => asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt => pv_native_safe_halt => default_idle => default_idle_call => do_idle => cpu_startup_entry => start_secondary => common_startup_64I take it that even with this patch you would still get the above events. The only difference would be the "cpu=" in the event info will not be the same as the CPU it executed on, right?
Yes, this is trace of a similar event after applying the patch:
<idle>-0 [002] d.h4. 313.334367: ipi_send_cpu: cpu=1 callsite=irq_work_queue_on+0x55/0x90 callback=generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x0/0x20
<idle>-0 [002] d.h4. 313.334390: <stack trace>
=> trace_event_raw_event_ipi_send_cpu
=> __smp_call_single_queue
=> irq_work_queue_on
=> ring_buffer_unlock_commit
=> trace_buffer_unlock_commit_regs
=> trace_event_buffer_commit
=> trace_event_raw_event_x86_irq_vector
=> __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
=> sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
=> asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
=> pv_native_safe_halt
=> default_idle
=> default_idle_call
=> do_idle
=> cpu_startup_entry
=> start_secondary
=> common_startup_64
The callback function in the trace event is different. That's because
send_call_function_single_ipi() always uses this value. Maybe it can be
improved, and I can look into it, but that's clearly a very separate
issue.
quoted
The IRQ work interrupt alone adds considerable noise, but the impact can get even worse with PREEMPT_RT, because the IRQ work interrupt is then handled by a separate kernel thread. This requires a task switch and makes tracing useless for analyzing latency on an isolated CPU. Signed-off-by: Petr Tesarik <redacted>LGTM, I'll queue it up for the next merge window.
Thank you! Petr T