Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/core: Remove the unnecessary need_resched() check in nohz_csd_func()
From: K Prateek Nayak
Date: Wed Jul 10 2024 - 13:58:12 EST
Hello Peter,
On 7/10/2024 8:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 09:02:08AM +0000, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
The need_resched() check currently in nohz_csd_func() can be tracked
to have been added in scheduler_ipi() back in 2011 via commit
ca38062e57e9 ("sched: Use resched IPI to kick off the nohz idle balance")
Since then, it has travelled quite a bit but it seems like an idle_cpu()
check currently is sufficient to detect the need to bail out from an
idle load balancing. To justify this removal, consider all the following
case where an idle load balancing could race with a task wakeup:
o Since commit f3dd3f674555b ("sched: Remove the limitation of WF_ON_CPU
on wakelist if wakee cpu is idle") a target perceived to be idle
(target_rq->nr_running == 0) will return true for
ttwu_queue_cond(target) which will offload the task wakeup to the idle
target via an IPI.
In all such cases target_rq->ttwu_pending will be set to 1 before
queuing the wake function.
If an idle load balance races here, following scenarios are possible:
- The CPU is not in TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG mode in which case an actual
IPI is sent to the CPU to wake it out of idle. If the
nohz_csd_func() queues before sched_ttwu_pending(), the idle load
balance will bail out since idle_cpu(target) returns 0 since
target_rq->ttwu_pending is 1. If the nohz_csd_func() is queued after
sched_ttwu_pending() it should see rq->nr_running to be non-zero and
bail out of idle load balancing.
- The CPU is in TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG mode and instead of an actual IPI,
the sender will simply set TIF_NEED_RESCHED for the target to put it
out of idle and flush_smp_call_function_queue() in do_idle() will
execute the call function. Depending on the ordering of the queuing
of nohz_csd_func() and sched_ttwu_pending(), the idle_cpu() check in
nohz_csd_func() should either see target_rq->ttwu_pending = 1 or
target_rq->nr_running to be non-zero if there is a genuine task
wakeup racing with the idle load balance kick.
For completion sake, we should also consider the !TTWU_QUEUE case, this
configuration is default for PREEMPT_RT, where the wake_list is a source
of non-determinism.
In quick reading I think that case should be fine, since we directly
enqueue remotely and ->nr_running adjusts accordingly, but it is late in
the day and I'm easily mistaken.
From what I've seen, an enqueue will always update "rq->nr_running"
before setting the "NEED_RESCHED" flag but I'll go confirm that again
and report back in case what that is false.
o The waker CPU perceives the target CPU to be busy
(targer_rq->nr_running != 0) but the CPU is in fact going idle and due
to a series of unfortunate events, the system reaches a case where the
waker CPU decides to perform the wakeup by itself in ttwu_queue() on
the target CPU but target is concurrently selected for idle load
balance (Can this happen? I'm not sure, but we'll consider its
possibility to estimate the worst case scenario).
ttwu_do_activate() calls enqueue_task() which would increment
"rq->nr_running" post which it calls wakeup_preempt() which is
responsible for setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED (via a resched IPI or by
setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED on a TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG idle CPU) The key
thing to note in this case is that rq->nr_running is already non-zero
in case of a wakeup before TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set which would
lead to idle_cpu() check returning false.
In all cases, it seems that need_resched() check is unnecessary when
checking for idle_cpu() first since an impending wakeup racing with idle
load balancer will either set the "rq->ttwu_pending" or indicate a newly
woken task via "rq->nr_running".
Right.
[..snip..]
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek