linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 3/4] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration instead of pulling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:48:54 -0800
From:	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 3/4] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push
 migration instead of pulling

On 12/07/12 15:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> When debugging the latencies on a 40 core box, where we hit 300 to
> 500 microsecond latencies, I found there was a huge contention on the
> runqueue locks.
> 
> Investigating it further, running ftrace, I found that it was due to
> the pulling of RT tasks.
> 
> The test that was run was the following:
> 
>  cyclictest --numa -p95 -m -d0 -i100
> 
> This created a thread on each CPU, that would set its wakeup in interations
> of 100 microseconds. The -d0 means that all the threads had the same
> interval (100us). Each thread sleeps for 100us and wakes up and measures
> its latencies.
> 
> What happened was another RT task would be scheduled on one of the CPUs
> that was running our test, when the other CPUS test went to sleep and
> scheduled idle. This cause the "pull" operation to execute on all
> these CPUs. Each one of these saw the RT task that was overloaded on
> the CPU of the test that was still running, and each one tried
> to grab that task in a thundering herd way.
> 
> To grab the task, each thread would do a double rq lock grab, grabbing
> its own lock as well as the rq of the overloaded CPU. As the sched
> domains on this box was rather flat for its size, I saw up to 12 CPUs
> block on this lock at once. This caused a ripple affect with the
> rq locks. As these locks were blocked, any wakeups on these CPUs
> would also block on these locks, and the wait time escalated.
> 
> I've tried various methods to lesson the load, but things like an
> atomic counter to only let one CPU grab the task wont work, because
> the task may have a limited affinity, and we may pick the wrong
> CPU to take that lock and do the pull, to only find out that the
> CPU we picked isn't in the task's affinity.

You are saying that the pulling CPU might not be in the pulled task's
affinity?  But isn't that checked:

  pull_rt_task()
     pick_next_highest_task_rt()
        pick_rt_task()
           if ( ... || cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p) ...

> 
> Instead of doing the PULL, I now have the CPUs that want the pull to
> send over an IPI to the overloaded CPU, and let that CPU pick what
> CPU to push the task to. No more need to grab the rq lock, and the
> push/pull algorithm still works fine.

That gives me the opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling.  Processing an IPI
on the overloaded CPU is not free (I'm being ARM-centric), and this is
putting more load on the already overloaded CPU.

I do recognize that you have actual measurements below that show goodness
for the pathological case you debugged.  I'm still mulling this all over...

> 
> With this patch, the latency dropped to just 150us over a 20 hour run.
> Without the patch, the huge latencies would trigger in seconds.

-Frank

--
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/