linux-kernel - [PATCH v3] sched,fair: skip newidle

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210420120705.5c705d4b@imladris.surriel.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:07:05 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] sched,fair: skip newidle_balance if a wakeup is pending

The try_to_wake_up function has an optimization where it can queue
a task for wakeup on its previous CPU, if the task is still in the
middle of going to sleep inside schedule().

Once schedule() re-enables IRQs, the task will be woken up with an
IPI, and placed back on the runqueue.

If we have such a wakeup pending, there is no need to search other
CPUs for runnable tasks. Just skip (or bail out early from) newidle
balancing, and run the just woken up task.

For a memcache like workload test, this reduces total CPU use by
about 2%, proportionally split between user and system time,
and p99 and p95 application response time by 10% on average.
The schedstats run_delay number shows a similar improvement.

Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 69680158963f..fd80175c3b3e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -10594,6 +10594,14 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	u64 curr_cost = 0;
 
 	update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
+
+	/*
+	 * There is a task waiting to run. No need to search for one.
+	 * Return 0; the task will be enqueued when switching to idle.
+	 */
+	if (this_rq->ttwu_pending)
+		return 0;
+
 	/*
 	 * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
 	 * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.
@@ -10661,7 +10669,8 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 		 * Stop searching for tasks to pull if there are
 		 * now runnable tasks on this rq.
 		 */
-		if (pulled_task || this_rq->nr_running > 0)
+		if (pulled_task || this_rq->nr_running > 0 ||
+		    this_rq->ttwu_pending)
 			break;
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -10688,7 +10697,12 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	if (this_rq->nr_running != this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running)
 		pulled_task = -1;
 
-	if (pulled_task)
+	/*
+	 * If we are no longer idle, do not let the time spent here pull
+	 * down this_rq->avg_idle. That could lead to newidle_balance not
+	 * doing enough work, and the CPU actually going idle.
+	 */
+	if (pulled_task || this_rq->ttwu_pending)
 		this_rq->idle_stamp = 0;
 
 	rq_repin_lock(this_rq, rf);
-- 
2.25.4