[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cyxa8zsj.fsf@somnus>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:36 +0200
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/25] timer: Move from a push remote at enqueue to a
pull at expiry model
Hello Prateek,
I'm sorry for the late reply!
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com> writes:
> Hello Anna-Maria,
>
> On 10/4/2023 6:04 PM, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
>> [..snip..]
>>
>> Ping Pong Oberservation
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> During testing on a mostly idle machine a ping pong game could be observed:
>> a process_timeout timer is expired remotely on a non idle CPU. Then the CPU
>> where the schedule_timeout() was executed to enqueue the timer comes out of
>> idle and restarts the timer using schedule_timeout() and goes back to idle
>> again. This is due to the fair scheduler which tries to keep the task on
>> the CPU which it previously executed on.
>
> Regarding above, are you referring to "wake_up_process(timeout->task)" in
> "process_timeout()" ends up waking the task on an idle CPU instead of the
> CPU where process_timeout() ran?
Yes.
> In which case, have you tried using the "WF_CURRENT_CPU" flag for the
> wakeup? (landed upstream in v6.6-rc1) It is only used by wait queues in
> kernel/sched/wait.c currently but perhaps we can have a
> "wake_up_process_on_current_cpu()" that process_timeout() can call.
>
> Something along the lines of:
>
> int wake_up_process_on_current_cpu(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> return try_to_wake_up(p, TASK_NORMAL, WF_CURRENT_CPU);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(wake_up_process_on_current_cpu);
>
> Thoughts?
I didn't look into this again. Back than, I reported the observation to
scheduler people (others also already observed this behavior). I'm not
so familiar with scheduling, so I will ping scheduler people to give you
a feedback.
Thanks,
Anna-Maria
Powered by blists - more mailing lists