Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Introducing TIF_NOTIFY_IPI flag
From: K Prateek Nayak
Date: Mon Jun 17 2024 - 04:34:56 EST
Hello Chenyu,
On 6/14/2024 10:01 PM, Chen Yu wrote:
On 2024-06-14 at 12:48:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 11:28, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 06:15:59PM +0000, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
Effects of call_function_single_prep_ipi()
==========================================
To pull a TIF_POLLING thread out of idle to process an IPI, the sender
sets the TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit in the idle task's thread info in
call_function_single_prep_ipi() and avoids sending an actual IPI to the
target. As a result, the scheduler expects a task to be enqueued when
exiting the idle path. This is not the case with non-polling idle states
where the idle CPU exits the non-polling idle state to process the
interrupt, and since need_resched() returns false, soon goes back to
idle again.
When TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag is set, do_idle() will call schedule_idle(),
a large part of which runs with local IRQ disabled. In case of ipistorm,
when measuring IPI throughput, this large IRQ disabled section delays
processing of IPIs. Further auditing revealed that in absence of any
runnable tasks, pick_next_task_fair(), which is called from the
pick_next_task() fast path, will always call newidle_balance() in this
scenario, further increasing the time spent in the IRQ disabled section.
Following is the crude visualization of the problem with relevant
functions expanded:
--
CPU0 CPU1
==== ====
do_idle() {
__current_set_polling();
...
monitor(addr);
if (!need_resched())
mwait() {
/* Waiting */
smp_call_function_single(CPU1, func, wait = 1) { ...
... ...
set_nr_if_polling(CPU1) { ...
/* Realizes CPU1 is polling */ ...
try_cmpxchg(addr, ...
&val, ...
val | _TIF_NEED_RESCHED); ...
} /* Does not send an IPI */ ...
... } /* mwait exit due to write at addr */
csd_lock_wait() { }
/* Waiting */ preempt_set_need_resched();
... __current_clr_polling();
... flush_smp_call_function_queue() {
... func();
} /* End of wait */ }
} schedule_idle() {
...
local_irq_disable();
smp_call_function_single(CPU1, func, wait = 1) { ...
... ...
arch_send_call_function_single_ipi(CPU1); ...
\ ...
\ newidle_balance() {
\ ...
/* Delay */ ...
\ }
\ ...
\--------------> local_irq_enable();
/* Processes the IPI */
--
Skipping newidle_balance()
==========================
In an earlier attempt to solve the challenge of the long IRQ disabled
section, newidle_balance() was skipped when a CPU waking up from idle
was found to have no runnable tasks, and was transitioning back to
idle [2]. Tim [3] and David [4] had pointed out that newidle_balance()
may be viable for CPUs that are idling with tick enabled, where the
newidle_balance() has the opportunity to pull tasks onto the idle CPU.
I don't think we should be relying on this in any way shape or form.
NOHZ can kill that tick at any time.
Also, semantically, calling newidle from the idle thread is just daft.
You're really not newly idle in that case.
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
I mean, it's fairly trivial to figure out if there really is going to be
work there.
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
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 ?
In the later case, we need to call sched_balance_newidle() but not in the former
Not sure if I understand correctly, if the goal of smp_call_function_single() is to
kick the idle CPU and do not force it to launch the schedule()->sched_balance_newidle(),
can we set the _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG rather than _TIF_NEED_RESCHED in set_nr_if_polling()?
I think writing any value to the monitor address would wakeup the idle CPU. And _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG
will be cleared once that idle CPU exit the idle loop, so we don't introduce arch-wide flag.
Although this might work for MWAIT, there is no way for the generic idle
path to know if there is a pending interrupt within a TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG
section. do_idle() sets TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG and relies on a bunch of
need_resched() checks along the way to bail early until finally doing a
current_clr_polling_and_test() before handing off to the cpuidle driver
in call_cpuidle(). I believe this section will necessarily need the sender
to indicate a pending interrupt via TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag to enable the
early bail out before going into the cpuidle driver since this case cannot
be considered the same as a break from MWAIT.
On x86, there seems to be a possibility of missing an interrupt if
someone writes _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG to thread info between the target
executing MONTOR and MWAIT. AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual
Volume 3: "General-Purpose and System Instructions", Chapter 4. "System
Instruction Reference", section "MWAIT" carries the following note in
the coding requirements:
"MWAIT must be conditionally executed only if the awaited store has not
already occurred. (This prevents a race condition between the MONITOR
instruction arming the monitoring hardware and the store intended to
trigger the monitoring hardware.)"
There exists a similar note in the "Example" section for "MWAIT" in
Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual, Vol 2B
Chapter 4.3 "Instructions (M-U)"
I'm not sure if one can use use _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG alone and cover
all the cases but there might be some clever trick to make it all
work :)
thanks,
Chenyu
+ p = pick_next_task_fair(rq, prev, rf);
+ if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK))
+ goto restart;
+ }
/* Assume the next prioritized class is idle_sched_class */
if (!p) {
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek