Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 13:30:09 -0400
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>, David.Laight@...lab.com,
        carlos@...hat.com, Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>,
        Chris Kennelly <ckennelly@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
        libc-alpha@...rceware.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] rseq: Add sched_state field to struct rseq

On 2023-05-23 12:32, Noah Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 7:49 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-05-19 16:51, Noah Goldstein wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:28 AM Mathieu Desnoyers via Libc-alpha
>>> <libc-alpha@...rceware.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Expose the "on-cpu" state for each thread through struct rseq to allow
>>>> adaptative mutexes to decide more accurately between busy-waiting and
>>>> calling sys_futex() to release the CPU, based on the on-cpu state of the
>>>> mutex owner.
>>>>
>>>> It is only provided as an optimization hint, because there is no
>>>> guarantee that the page containing this field is in the page cache, and
>>>> therefore the scheduler may very well fail to clear the on-cpu state on
>>>> preemption. This is expected to be rare though, and is resolved as soon
>>>> as the task returns to user-space.
>>>>
>>>> The goal is to improve use-cases where the duration of the critical
>>>> sections for a given lock follows a multi-modal distribution, preventing
>>>> statistical guesses from doing a good job at choosing between busy-wait
>>>> and futex wait behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
>>>> Cc: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>>>> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
>>>> Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
>>>> Cc: libc-alpha@...rceware.org
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/linux/sched.h     | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>>    include/uapi/linux/rseq.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>    kernel/rseq.c             | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>    3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>>>> index eed5d65b8d1f..c7e9248134c1 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>>> @@ -2351,11 +2351,20 @@ static inline void rseq_signal_deliver(struct ksignal *ksig,
>>>>           rseq_handle_notify_resume(ksig, regs);
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +void __rseq_set_sched_state(struct task_struct *t, unsigned int state);
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void rseq_set_sched_state(struct task_struct *t, unsigned int state)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       if (t->rseq)
>>>> +               __rseq_set_sched_state(t, state);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    /* rseq_preempt() requires preemption to be disabled. */
>>>>    static inline void rseq_preempt(struct task_struct *t)
>>>>    {
>>>>           __set_bit(RSEQ_EVENT_PREEMPT_BIT, &t->rseq_event_mask);
>>>>           rseq_set_notify_resume(t);
>>>> +       rseq_set_sched_state(t, 0);
>>>
>>> Should rseq_migrate also be made to update the cpu_id of the new core?
>>> I imagine the usage of this will be something along the lines of:
>>>
>>> if(!on_cpu(mutex->owner_rseq_struct) &&
>>>      cpu(mutex->owner_rseq_struct) == this_threads_cpu)
>>>      // goto futex
>>>
>>> So I would think updating on migrate would be useful as well.
>>
>> I don't think we want to act differently based on the cpu on which the
>> owner is queued.
>>
>> If the mutex owner is not on-cpu, and queued on the same cpu as the
>> current thread, we indeed want to call sys_futex WAIT.
>>
>> If the mutex owner is not on-cpu, but queued on a different cpu than the
>> current thread, we *still* want to call sys_futex WAIT, because
>> busy-waiting for a thread which is queued but not currently running is
>> wasteful.
>>
> I think this is less clear. In some cases sure but not always. Going
> to the futex
> has more latency that userland waits, and if the system is not busy (other than
> the one process) most likely less latency that yield. Also going to the futex
> requires a syscall on unlock.
> 
> For example if the critical section is expected to be very small, it
> would be easy
> to imagine the lock be better implemented with:
> while(is_locked)
>    if (owner->on_cpu || owner->cpu != my_cpu)
>      exponential backoff
>    else
>      yield
> 
> Its not that "just go to futex" doesn't ever make sense, but I don't
> think its fair
> to say that *always* the case.
> 
> Looking at the kernel code, it doesn't seem to be a particularly high cost to
> keep the CPU field updated during migration so seems like a why not
> kind of question.

We already have the owner rseq_abi cpu_id field populated on every 
return-to-userspace. I wonder if it's really relevant that migration 
populates an updated value in this field immediately ? It's another case 
where this would be provided as a hint updated only if the struct rseq 
is in the page cache, because AFAIU the scheduler migration path cannot 
take a page fault.

Also, if a thread bounces around many runqueues before being scheduled 
again, we would be adding those useless stores to the rseq_abi structure 
at each migration between runqueues.

Given this would add some complexity to the scheduler migration code, I 
would want to see metrics/benchmarks showing that it indeed improves 
real-world use-cases before adding this to the rseq ABI.

It's not only a question of added lines of code as of today, but also a 
question of added userspace ABI guarantees which can prevent future 
scheduler optimizations. I'm *very* careful about keeping those to a 
strict minimum, which I hope Peter Zijlstra appreciates.

Thanks,

Mathieu


>> Or am I missing something ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>> --
>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>> EfficiOS Inc.
>> https://www.efficios.com
>>

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists