Thread (19 messages) 19 messages, 5 authors, 2024-06-20

Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Introducing TIF_NOTIFY_IPI flag

From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: 2024-06-16 14:57:29
Also in: linux-alpha, linux-pm, linux-sh, lkml, sparclinux

On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 at 03:28, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:48:37PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 11:28, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
Vincent [5] pointed out a case where the idle load kick will fail to
run on an idle CPU since the IPI handler launching the ILB will check
for need_resched(). In such cases, the idle CPU relies on
newidle_balance() to pull tasks towards itself.
Is this the need_resched() in _nohz_idle_balance() ? Should we change
this to 'need_resched() && (rq->nr_running || rq->ttwu_pending)' or
something long those lines?
It's not only this but also in do_idle() as well which exits the loop
to look for tasks to schedule
Is that really a problem? Reading the initial email the problem seems to
be newidle balance, not hitting schedule. Schedule should be fairly
quick if there's nothing to do, no?
There are 2 problems:
- Because of NEED_RESCHED being set, we go through the full schedule
path for no reason and we finally do a sched_balance_newidle()
- Because of need_resched being set o wake up the cpu, we will not
kick the softirq to run the nohz idle load balance and get a chance to
pull a task on an idle CPU
quoted
quoted
I mean, it's fairly trivial to figure out if there really is going to be
work there.
quoted
Using an alternate flag instead of NEED_RESCHED to indicate a pending
IPI was suggested as the correct approach to solve this problem on the
same thread.
So adding per-arch changes for this seems like something we shouldn't
unless there really is no other sane options.

That is, I really think we should start with something like the below
and then fix any fallout from that.
The main problem is that need_resched becomes somewhat meaningless
because it doesn't  only mean "I need to resched a task" and we have
to add more tests around even for those not using polling
True, however we already had some of that by having the wakeup list,
that made nr_running less 'reliable'.

The thing is, most architectures seem to have the TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG
bit, even if their main idle routine isn't actually using it, much of
Yes, I'm surprised that Arm arch has the TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG whereas it
has never been supported by the arch
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
the idle loop until it hits the arch idle will be having it set and will
thus tickle these cases *sometimes*.
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0935f9d4bb7b..cfa45338ae97 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -5799,7 +5800,7 @@ static inline struct task_struct *
 __pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
 {
        const struct sched_class *class;
-       struct task_struct *p;
+       struct task_struct *p = NULL;

        /*
         * Optimization: we know that if all tasks are in the fair class we can
@@ -5810,9 +5811,11 @@ __pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
        if (likely(!sched_class_above(prev->sched_class, &fair_sched_class) &&
                   rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.h_nr_running)) {

-               p = pick_next_task_fair(rq, prev, rf);
-               if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK))
-                       goto restart;
+               if (rq->nr_running) {
How do you make the diff between a spurious need_resched() because of
polling and a cpu becoming idle ? isn't rq->nr_running null in both
cases ?
Bah, true. It should also check current being idle, which then makes a
mess of things again. Still, we shouldn't be calling newidle from idle,
that's daft.

I should probably not write code at 3am, but the below horror is what
I came up with.

---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0935f9d4bb7b..cfe8d3350819 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -6343,19 +6344,12 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
  * Constants for the sched_mode argument of __schedule().
  *
  * The mode argument allows RT enabled kernels to differentiate a
- * preemption from blocking on an 'sleeping' spin/rwlock. Note that
- * SM_MASK_PREEMPT for !RT has all bits set, which allows the compiler to
- * optimize the AND operation out and just check for zero.
+ * preemption from blocking on an 'sleeping' spin/rwlock.
  */
-#define SM_NONE                        0x0
-#define SM_PREEMPT             0x1
-#define SM_RTLOCK_WAIT         0x2
-
-#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
-# define SM_MASK_PREEMPT       (~0U)
-#else
-# define SM_MASK_PREEMPT       SM_PREEMPT
-#endif
+#define SM_IDLE                        (-1)
+#define SM_NONE                        0
+#define SM_PREEMPT             1
+#define SM_RTLOCK_WAIT         2

 /*
  * __schedule() is the main scheduler function.
@@ -6396,11 +6390,12 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
  *
  * WARNING: must be called with preemption disabled!
  */
-static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
+static void __sched notrace __schedule(int sched_mode)
 {
        struct task_struct *prev, *next;
        unsigned long *switch_count;
        unsigned long prev_state;
+       bool preempt = sched_mode > 0;
        struct rq_flags rf;
        struct rq *rq;
        int cpu;
@@ -6409,13 +6404,13 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
        rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
        prev = rq->curr;

-       schedule_debug(prev, !!sched_mode);
+       schedule_debug(prev, preempt);

        if (sched_feat(HRTICK) || sched_feat(HRTICK_DL))
                hrtick_clear(rq);

        local_irq_disable();
-       rcu_note_context_switch(!!sched_mode);
+       rcu_note_context_switch(preempt);

        /*
         * Make sure that signal_pending_state()->signal_pending() below
@@ -6449,7 +6444,12 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
         * that we form a control dependency vs deactivate_task() below.
         */
        prev_state = READ_ONCE(prev->__state);
-       if (!(sched_mode & SM_MASK_PREEMPT) && prev_state) {
+       if (sched_mode == SM_IDLE) {
+               if (!rq->nr_running) {
+                       next = prev;
+                       goto picked;
+               }
+       } else if (!preempt && prev_state) {
                if (signal_pending_state(prev_state, prev)) {
                        WRITE_ONCE(prev->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
                } else {
@@ -6483,6 +6483,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
        }

        next = pick_next_task(rq, prev, &rf);
+picked:
        clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);
        clear_preempt_need_resched();
 #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
@@ -6521,9 +6522,9 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(unsigned int sched_mode)
                ++*switch_count;

                migrate_disable_switch(rq, prev);
                psi_sched_switch(prev, next, !task_on_rq_queued(prev));

-               trace_sched_switch(sched_mode & SM_MASK_PREEMPT, prev, next, prev_state);
+               trace_sched_switch(preempt, prev, next, prev_state);

                /* Also unlocks the rq: */
                rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf);
@@ -6599,7 +6601,7 @@ static void sched_update_worker(struct task_struct *tsk)
        }
 }

-static __always_inline void __schedule_loop(unsigned int sched_mode)
+static __always_inline void __schedule_loop(int sched_mode)
 {
        do {
                preempt_disable();
@@ -6644,7 +6646,7 @@ void __sched schedule_idle(void)
         */
        WARN_ON_ONCE(current->__state);
        do {
-               __schedule(SM_NONE);
+               __schedule(SM_IDLE);
        } while (need_resched());
 }
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help