Message-ID: <20200924082717.GA1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:27:17 +0200
From:   peterz@...radead.org
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        "open list\:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
        Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
        Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-sparc <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch RFC 00/15] mm/highmem: Provide a preemptible variant of
 kmap_atomic & friends

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:52:51AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:40:32 +0200
> peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> 
> > However, with migrate_disable() we can have each task preempted in a
> > migrate_disable() region, worse we can stack them all on the _same_ CPU
> > (super ridiculous odds, sure). And then we end up only able to run one
> > task, with the rest of the CPUs picking their nose.
> 
> What if we just made migrate_disable() a local_lock() available for !RT?

Can't, neiter migrate_disable() nor migrate_enable() are allowed to
block -- which is what makes their implementation so 'interesting'.

> This should lower the SHC in theory, if you can't have stacked migrate
> disables on the same CPU.

See this email in that other thread (you're on Cc too IIRC):

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200923170809.GY1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

I think that is we 'frob' the balance PULL, we'll end up with something
similar.

Whichever way around we turn this thing, the migrate_disable() runtime
(we'll have to add a tracer for that), will be an interference term on
the lower priority task, exactly like preempt_disable() would be. We'll
just not exclude a higher priority task from running.


AFAICT; the best case is a single migrate_disable() nesting, where a
higher priority task preempts in a migrate_disable() section -- this is
per design.

When this preempted task becomes elegible to run under the ideal model
(IOW it becomes one of the M highest priority tasks), it might still
have to wait for the preemptee's migrate_disable() section to complete.
Thereby suffering interference in the exact duration of
migrate_disable() section.

Per this argument, the change from preempt_disable() to
migrate_disable() gets us:

 - higher priority tasks gain reduced wake-up latency
 - lower priority tasks are unchanged and are subject to the exact same
   interference term as if the higher priority task were using
   preempt_disable().

Since we've already established this term is unbounded, any task but the
highest priority task is basically buggered.

TL;DR, if we get balancing fixed and achieve (near) the optimal case
above, migrate_disable() is an over-all win. But it's provably
non-deterministic as long as the migrate_disable() sections are
non-deterministic.


The reason this all mostly works in practise is (I think) because:

 - People care most about the higher prio RT tasks and craft them to
   mostly avoid the migrate_disable() infected code.

 - The preemption scenario is most pronounced at higher utilization
   scenarios, and I suspect this is fairly rare to begin with.

 - And while many of these migrate_disable() regions are unbound in
   theory, in practise they're often fairly reasonable.


So my current todo list is:

 - Change RT PULL
 - Change DL PULL
 - Add migrate_disable() tracer; exactly like preempt/irqoff, except
   measuring task-runtime instead of cpu-time.
 - Add a mode that measures actual interference.
 - Add a traceevent to detect preemption in migrate_disable().


And then I suppose I should twist Daniel's arm to update his model to
include these scenarios and numbers.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists