Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:27:47 -0700
From:	Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz/cpuset: Make a CPU stick with do_timer() duty in the
 presence of nohz cpusets

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hakan,
>
> As I start to focus on timekeeing for full dynticks, I'm looking at
> your patch. Sorry I haven't yet replied with a serious review until
> now. But here is it, finally:
>
> 2012/6/17 Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>:
> > An adaptive nohz (AHZ) CPU may not do do_timer() for a while
> > despite being non-idle. When all other CPUs are idle, AHZ
> > CPUs might be using stale jiffies values. To prevent this
> > always keep a CPU with ticks if there is one or more AHZ
> > CPUs.
> >
> > The patch changes can_stop_{idle,adaptive}_tick functions
> > and prevents either the last CPU who did the do_timer() duty
> > or the AHZ CPU itself from stopping its sched timer if there
> > is one or more AHZ CPUs in the system. This means AHZ CPUs
> > might keep the ticks running for short periods until a
> > non-AHZ CPU takes the charge away in
> > tick_do_timer_check_handler() function. When a non-AHZ CPU
> > takes the charge, it never gives it away so that AHZ CPUs
> > can run tickless.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>
> > CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/cpuset.h   |    3 ++-
> >  kernel/cpuset.c          |    5 +++++
> >  kernel/time/tick-sched.c |   31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> > index ccbc2fd..19aa448 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> > @@ -266,11 +266,12 @@ static inline bool cpuset_adaptive_nohz(void)
> >
> >  extern void cpuset_exit_nohz_interrupt(void *unused);
> >  extern void cpuset_nohz_flush_cputimes(void);
> > +extern bool nohz_cpu_exist(void);
> >  #else
> >  static inline bool cpuset_cpu_adaptive_nohz(int cpu) { return false; }
> >  static inline bool cpuset_adaptive_nohz(void) { return false; }
> >  static inline void cpuset_nohz_flush_cputimes(void) { }
> > -
> > +static inline bool nohz_cpu_exist(void) { return false; }
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_CPUSETS_NO_HZ */
> >
> >  #endif /* _LINUX_CPUSET_H */
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpuset.c b/kernel/cpuset.c
> > index 858217b..ccbaac9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpuset.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpuset.c
> > @@ -1231,6 +1231,11 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_adaptive_nohz_ref);
> >
> >  static cpumask_t nohz_cpuset_mask;
> >
> > +inline bool nohz_cpu_exist(void)
> > +{
> > +       return !cpumask_empty(&nohz_cpuset_mask);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void flush_cputime_interrupt(void *unused)
> >  {
> >         trace_printk("IPI: flush cputime\n");
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > index bdc8aeb..e60d541 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > @@ -409,6 +409,25 @@ out:
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline bool must_take_timer_duty(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +       int handler = tick_do_timer_cpu;
> > +       bool ret = false;
> > +       bool tick_needed = nohz_cpu_exist();
>
> Note this is racy because this fetches the value of the
> nohz_cpuset_mask without locking.
> We may "see" there is no nohz cpusets whereas we just set some of them
> as nohz and they
> could even have shut down their tick already.

Yes, this is racy indeed. Thanks for pointing out.

>
>
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * A CPU will have to take the timer duty if there is an adaptive
> > +        * nohz CPU in the system. The last handler == cpu check ensures
> > +        * that the last cpu that did the do_timer() sticks with the duty.
> > +        * A normal (non nohz) cpu will take the charge from a nohz cpu in
> > +        * tick_do_timer_check_handler anyway.
> > +        */
> > +       if (tick_needed && (handler == TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE || handler == cpu))
> > +               ret = true;
>
> This check is also racy due to the lack of locking. The previous
> handler may have set TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE and gone to sleep. We have no
> guarantee that the CPU can see that new value. It could believe there
> is still a handler. This needs at least cmpxchg() to make the test and
> set atomic.
>
> > +
> > +       return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static bool can_stop_idle_tick(int cpu, struct tick_sched *ts)
> >  {
> >         /*
> > @@ -421,6 +440,9 @@ static bool can_stop_idle_tick(int cpu, struct tick_sched *ts)
> >         if (unlikely(!cpu_online(cpu))) {
> >                 if (cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu)
> >                         tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE;
> > +       } else if (must_take_timer_duty(cpu)) {
> > +               tick_do_timer_cpu = cpu;
> > +               return false;
> >         }
> >
> >         if (unlikely(ts->nohz_mode == NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE))
> > @@ -512,6 +534,13 @@ void tick_nohz_idle_enter(void)
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS_NO_HZ
> >  static bool can_stop_adaptive_tick(void)
> >  {
> > +       int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +
> > +       if (must_take_timer_duty(cpu)) {
> > +               tick_do_timer_cpu = cpu;
> > +               return false;
>
> One problem I see here is that you randomize the handler. It could be
> an adaptive nohz CPU or an idle CPU. It's a problem if the user wants
> CPU isolation.

Yes, an adaptive nohz CPU might be forced to take the duty if nobody else
is doing it. However, as soon as a regular CPU notices this it takes the duty
and never gives it up as long as there are nohz cpusets in the system.

>
> I suggest to rather define a tunable timekeeping duty CPU affinity in
> a cpumask file at /sys/devices/system/cpu/timekeeping and a toggle at
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/timekeeping (like the online file). This
> way the user can decide whether adaptive nohz CPU can handle
> timekeeping or this must be forced to other CPUs in order to enforce
> isolation.

Well, users want tickless CPUs because they don't want timekeeping
(or any other kernel activity for that matter) to run in there. So, I believe
having that "timekeeping affinity" stay in the regular CPUs is good enough.
Please let me know how users could utilize these control files to do anything
other than keeping the timekeeping out of adaptive nohz CPUs.

>
> Concerning implementation details, a way to avoid locking while
> ensuring there is always a CPU handling timekeeping is to define some
> state machine through tick_do_timer_cpu values like the below
> scenario:
>
> * tick_do_timer_cpu = some CPU. In this case the timekeeping has a
> running handler, everything is fine
>
> * tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_IDLE. The timekeeping handler
> wants to go idle and stop its tick. He's going to keep its tick and
> the timekeeping duty until some other CPU sees this value and sets
> itself as the new handler. Then the previous handler can finally stop
> its tick.
>
> * tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE. There is no handler
> currently. The next handler is the next CPU that will restart its
> tick. This value is only possible if cpu_online_mask =
> cpu_timekeeping_mask and there is no adaptive nohz running.
>
> Does that look ok?

Something like this together with a mechanism to prevent regular CPUs
stopping the tick for being idle when adaptive nohz CPUs are doing their
things is necessary. I'll rework the patch and resend soon.

>
> If so, tell me if you want to rework this patch with these
> suggestions. Or I can do it, either way.
>
> Thanks.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists