Re: [PATCH][resubmit] x86: enable preemption in delay

[Marin Mitov]

On Monday 09 June 2008 03:13:09 pm Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Marin Mitov <mitov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > This is a resubmit of the patch proposed by Ingo and me few month ago:
> > 
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/20/343
> > 
> > It was in -mm for a while and then removed due to a move into the 
> > mainline, but it never appeared in it.
> 
> hm, we've got this overlapping commit in -tip for the same general 
> problem:
> 
> |  # x86/urgent: e71e716: x86: enable preemption in delay
> |
> |  From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> |  Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:13:32 -0400
> |  Subject: [PATCH] x86: enable preemption in delay
> 
> i think Thomas had a concern with the original fix - forgot the details.

Here they are:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/251

but see my comment to it.

> 
> 	Ingo

There is no principal difference between both patches. I have seen Steven's
one as merged in linux-2.6.26-rc5. The only difference (if it matters of all) is
that in mine patch preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() sections are shorter
and protect only the code that must be protected: 

preempt_disable()
rdtscl()
smp_processor_id()
preempt_enable()

As far as Steven's patch is already merged - let it be :-)

Regards 

Marin Mitov

> 
> ------------------>
> commit e71e716c531557308895598002bee24c431d3be1
> Author: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Sun May 25 11:13:32 2008 -0400
> 
>     x86: enable preemption in delay
>     
>     The RT team has been searching for a nasty latency. This latency shows
>     up out of the blue and has been seen to be as big as 5ms!
>     
>     Using ftrace I found the cause of the latency.
>     
>        pcscd-2995  3dNh1 52360300us : irq_exit (smp_apic_timer_interrupt)
>        pcscd-2995  3dN.2 52360301us : idle_cpu (irq_exit)
>        pcscd-2995  3dN.2 52360301us : rcu_irq_exit (irq_exit)
>        pcscd-2995  3dN.1 52360771us : smp_apic_timer_interrupt (apic_timer_interrupt
>     )
>        pcscd-2995  3dN.1 52360771us : exit_idle (smp_apic_timer_interrupt)
>     
>     Here's an example of a 400 us latency. pcscd took a timer interrupt and
>     returned with "need resched" enabled, but did not reschedule until after
>     the next interrupt came in at 52360771us 400us later!
>     
>     At first I thought we somehow missed a preemption check in entry.S. But
>     I also noticed that this always seemed to happen during a __delay call.
>     
>        pcscd-2995  3dN.2 52360836us : rcu_irq_exit (irq_exit)
>        pcscd-2995  3.N.. 52361265us : preempt_schedule (__delay)
>     
>     Looking at the x86 delay, I found my problem.
>     
>     In git commit 35d5d08a085c56f153458c3f5d8ce24123617faf, Andrew Morton
>     placed preempt_disable around the entire delay due to TSC's not working
>     nicely on SMP.  Unfortunately for those that care about latencies this
>     is devastating! Especially when we have callers to mdelay(8).
>     
>     Here I enable preemption during the loop and account for anytime the task
>     migrates to a new CPU. The delay asked for may be extended a bit by
>     the migration, but delay only guarantees that it will delay for that minimum
>     time. Delaying longer should not be an issue.
>     
>     [
>       Thanks to Thomas Gleixner for spotting that cpu wasn't updated,
>         and to place the rep_nop between preempt_enabled/disable.
>     ]
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxx
>     Cc: Clark Williams <clark.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@xxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: Andi Kleen <andi-suse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c b/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c
> index 4535e6d..d710f2d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c
> @@ -44,13 +44,36 @@ static void delay_loop(unsigned long loops)
>  static void delay_tsc(unsigned long loops)
>  {
>  	unsigned long bclock, now;
> +	int cpu;
>  
> -	preempt_disable();		/* TSC's are per-cpu */
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	rdtscl(bclock);
> -	do {
> -		rep_nop();
> +	for (;;) {
>  		rdtscl(now);
> -	} while ((now-bclock) < loops);
> +		if ((now - bclock) >= loops)
> +			break;
> +
> +		/* Allow RT tasks to run */
> +		preempt_enable();
> +		rep_nop();
> +		preempt_disable();
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * It is possible that we moved to another CPU, and
> +		 * since TSC's are per-cpu we need to calculate
> +		 * that. The delay must guarantee that we wait "at
> +		 * least" the amount of time. Being moved to another
> +		 * CPU could make the wait longer but we just need to
> +		 * make sure we waited long enough. Rebalance the
> +		 * counter for this CPU.
> +		 */
> +		if (unlikely(cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> +			loops -= (now - bclock);
> +			cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +			rdtscl(bclock);
> +		}
> +	}
>  	preempt_enable();
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/delay_64.c b/arch/x86/lib/delay_64.c
> index bbc6105..4c441be 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/delay_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/delay_64.c
> @@ -31,14 +31,36 @@ int __devinit read_current_timer(unsigned long *timer_value)
>  void __delay(unsigned long loops)
>  {
>  	unsigned bclock, now;
> +	int cpu;
>  
> -	preempt_disable();		/* TSC's are pre-cpu */
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	rdtscl(bclock);
> -	do {
> -		rep_nop(); 
> +	for (;;) {
>  		rdtscl(now);
> +		if ((now - bclock) >= loops)
> +			break;
> +
> +		/* Allow RT tasks to run */
> +		preempt_enable();
> +		rep_nop();
> +		preempt_disable();
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * It is possible that we moved to another CPU, and
> +		 * since TSC's are per-cpu we need to calculate
> +		 * that. The delay must guarantee that we wait "at
> +		 * least" the amount of time. Being moved to another
> +		 * CPU could make the wait longer but we just need to
> +		 * make sure we waited long enough. Rebalance the
> +		 * counter for this CPU.
> +		 */
> +		if (unlikely(cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> +			loops -= (now - bclock);
> +			cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +			rdtscl(bclock);
> +		}
>  	}
> -	while ((now-bclock) < loops);
>  	preempt_enable();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__delay);
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/