linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Skip newidle_balance() when an idle CPU is woken up to process an IPI

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:05:23 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
 vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
 bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
 vschneid@...hat.com, gautham.shenoy@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Skip newidle_balance() when an idle CPU is
 woken up to process an IPI

Hello David,

Thank you for taking a look at the patch.

On 1/24/2024 2:47 AM, David Vernet wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:28:31AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>> Hello Tim,
>>
>> On 1/23/2024 3:29 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 14:15 +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> index b803030c3a03..1fedc7e29c98 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> @@ -8499,6 +8499,16 @@ done: __maybe_unused;
>>>>  	if (!rf)
>>>>  		return NULL;
>>>>  
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * An idle CPU in TIF_POLLING mode might end up here after processing
>>>> +	 * an IPI when the sender sets the TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit and avoids
>>>> +	 * sending an actual IPI. In such cases, where an idle CPU was woken
>>>> +	 * up only to process an interrupt, without necessarily queuing a task
>>>> +	 * on it, skip newidle_balance() to facilitate faster idle re-entry.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (prev == rq->idle)
>>>> +		return NULL;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Should we check the call function queue directly to detect that there is
>>> an IPI waiting to be processed? something like
>>>
>>> 	if (!llist_empty(&per_cpu(call_single_queue, rq->cpu)))
>>> 		return NULL;
>>
>> That could be a valid check too. However, if an IPI is queued right
>> after this check, the processing is still delayed since
>> newidle_balance() only bails out for scenarios when a wakeup is trying
>> to queue a new task on the CPU running the newidle_balance().
>>
>>>
>>> Could there be cases where we want to do idle balance in this code path?
>>> Say a cpu is idle and a scheduling tick came in, we may try
>>> to look for something to run on the idle cpu.  Seems like after
>>> your change above, that would be skipped.
>>
>> Wouldn't scheduler_tick() do load balancing when the time comes? In my
>> testing, I did not see a case where the workloads I tested were
>> sensitive to the aspect of newidle_balance() being invoked at scheduler
>> tick. Have you come across a workload which might be sensitive to this
>> aspect that I can quickly test and verify? Meanwhile, I'll run the
>> workloads mentioned in the commit log on an Intel system to see if I
>> can spot any sensitivity to this change.
>>
>> Adding David to the thread too since HHVM seems to be one of those
>> workloads that is very sensitive to a successful newidle_balance().
> 
> Thanks for the cc. FWIW, I think a lot of things are very sensitive to
> timing in newidle_balance(), but it goes both ways. For example, we had
> to revert commit e60b56e46b38 ("sched/fair: Wait before decaying
> max_newidle_lb_cost") [0] on our internal kernel because it regressed
> some workloads by causing us to load_balance() too frequently. I think
> the fix is correct in that there's no reason we shouldn't apply the ~1%
> decay / second to newidle lb cost in newidle_balance(), but by causing
> us to (correctly) decay newidle lb cost in newidle_balance(), it also
> increased CPU util rather significantly and had us spending too much
> time in load_balance().
> 
> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211019123537.17146-4-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
> 
> On the other hand, on other hosts, we use SHARED_RUNQ to load balance as
> aggressively as possible, and those hosts would have benefited from that
> change if SHARED_RUNQ wasn't an option.
> 
> My 2 cents is that I think it's impossible to make everyone happy, and I
> think the change here makes sense. If there's imbalance, it's something
> we would uncover when load_balance() is kicked off on the tick path
> anyways. I also agree with Vincent [1] that your idea / prototype of
> adding a TIF_NEED_IPI flag is an overall better solution, but this does
> seem fine to me as well in the interim.

Thank you for the detailing your explorations and giving more insights
around newidle_balance(). I'll clean up and test the TIF_NEED_IPI
prototype some more before sending out an RFC.

> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAKfTPtC446Lo9CATPp7PExdkLhHQFoBuY-JMGC7agOHY4hs-Pw@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Thanks,
> David

--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek