Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:10:44 -0700
From:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND/RFC] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound
 timers really not bound to a cpu

On 09/23/2014 11:33 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Joonwoo Park wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> +static struct tvec_base *tvec_base_deferral = &boot_tvec_bases;
>> +#endif
>
> In principle I like the idea of a deferrable wheel, but this
> implementation is going to go nowhere.

Hi Thomas,

To give some more context:

This bug is a serious pain in the a** for anyone using deferrable timers 
or deferrable workqueues today for some periodic work and don't care for 
which CPU the code runs in.

Couple of examples of such issues in existing code:

1) In a SMP system, CPUfreq governors (ondemand and conservative) end up 
queueing a deferrable work on every single CPU and the first one to run 
the deferrable workqueue cancels the work on all other CPUS, runs the 
work and then sets up a workqueue on all the CPUs again for the next 
sampling point.

2) Devfreq actually doesn't work well today because it doesn't do this 
nasty hack like CPUfreq. So, if the devfreq work happens to run on a CPU 
that's typically idle, then it doesn't run for a long time. I've 
actually seen logs where the devfreq polling interval is set to 20ms, 
but ends up running 800ms later.

Don't know how many other drivers are suffering from this bug. Yes, 
IMHO, this is a bug. When the timer is CPU unbound, anyone who hasn't 
looked at the actual timer code would assume that it'll run as long as 
any CPU is busy.

> First of all making it SMP only is silly. The deferrable stuff is a
> pain in other places as well.
>
> But whats way worse is:
>
>> +static inline void __run_timers(struct tvec_base *base, bool try)
>>   {
>>   	struct timer_list *timer;
>>
>> -	spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
>> +	if (!try)
>> +		spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
>> +	else if (!spin_trylock_irq(&base->lock))
>> +		return;
>
> Yuck. All cpus fighting about a single spinlock roughly at the same
> time? You just created a proper thundering herd cacheline bouncing
> issue.

I agree, This is not good. I think a simple way to fix this is to have 
only the CPU that's the jiffy owner to run through this deferrable timer 
list.

That should address any unnecessary cache bouncing issues. Would that be 
an acceptable solution to this?

>
> No way. We have already mechanisms in place to deal with such
> problems, you just have to use them.

I'm not sure which problem you are referring to here. Or what the 
already existing solutions are.

I don't think you were referring to the "deferrable timer getting 
delayed for long periods despite CPUs being active" problem, because I 
don't think we have a better solution than this patch (with the jiffy 
owner CPU fix). Asking every driver that doesn't care which CPU the work 
runs on to queue a work or set up a timer on every CPU is definitely not 
a good solution -- that's spreading the complexity to every other driver 
instead of fixing it in one place. And that causes unnecessary cache 
pollution too.

Thoughts? I would really like to see a fix for this go in soon so that 
we can simplify cpufreq and have devfreq and other drivers work correctly.

Thanks,
Saravana

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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