Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling

From: Shrikanth Hegde
Date: Fri Apr 26 2024 - 03:48:11 EST




On 4/23/24 9:43 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 08:23, Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Are these the only arch bits that need to be defined? am I missing something very
>> basic here? will try to debug this further. Any inputs?
>
> I don't think powerpc uses the generic *_exit_to_user_mode() helper
> functions, so you'll need to also add that logic to the low-level
> powerpc code.
>
> IOW, on x86, with this patch series, patch 06/30 did this:
>
> - if (ti_work & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED)
> + if (ti_work & (_TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY))
> schedule();
>
> in kernel/entry/common.c exit_to_user_mode_loop().
>
> But that works on x86 because it uses the irqentry_exit_to_user_mode().
>
> On PowerPC, I think you need to at least fix up
>
> interrupt_exit_user_prepare_main()
>
> similarly (and any other paths like that - I used to know the powerpc
> code, but that was long long LOOONG ago).
>
> Linus

Thank you Linus for the pointers. That indeed did the trick.

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c
index eca293794a1e..f0f38bf5cea9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ interrupt_exit_user_prepare_main(unsigned long ret, struct pt_regs *regs)
ti_flags = read_thread_flags();
while (unlikely(ti_flags & (_TIF_USER_WORK_MASK & ~_TIF_RESTORE_TM))) {
local_irq_enable();
- if (ti_flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED) {
+ if (ti_flags & (_TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY) ) {
schedule();
} else {


By adding LAZY checks in interrupt_exit_user_prepare_main, softlockup is no longer seen and
hackbench results are more or less same on smaller system(96CPUS). However, I still see 20-50%
regression on the larger system(320 CPUS). I will continue to debug why.