linux-kernel - [PATCH] sched/fair: Dequeue sched_delayed tasks when waking to a busy CPU

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

Message-ID: <750542452c4f852831e601e1b8de40df4b108d9a.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 01:24:35 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, 
 vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, 
 bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
 wuyun.abel@...edance.com,  youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Dequeue sched_delayed tasks when waking to a
 busy CPU

On Thu, 2024-11-07 at 15:09 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 03:02:36PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-11-07 at 10:46 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2024-11-07 at 05:03 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I built that patch out of curiosity, and yeah, set_next_task_fair()
> > > > finding a cfs_rq->curr ends play time pretty quickly.
> > >
> > > The below improved uptime, and trace_printk() says it's doing the
> > > intended, so I suppose I'll add a feature and see what falls out.
> >
> > From netperf, I got.. number tabulation practice.  Three runs of each
> > test with and without produced nothing but variance/noise.
>
> Make it go away then.
>
> If you could write a Changelog for you inspired bit and stick my cleaned
> up version under it, I'd be much obliged.

Salut, much obliged for eyeball relief.

---snip---

Phil Auld (Redhat) reported an fio benchmark regression having been found
to have been caused by addition of the DELAY_DEQUEUE feature, suggested it
may be related to wakees losing the ability to migrate, and confirmed that
restoration of same indeed did restore previous performance.

(de-uglified-a-lot-by)

Reported-by: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Fixes: 152e11f6df29 ("sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241101124715.GA689589@pauld.westford.csb/
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c  |   48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 kernel/sched/sched.h |    5 +++++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3783,28 +3783,38 @@ ttwu_do_activate(struct rq *rq, struct t
  */
 static int ttwu_runnable(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
 {
-	struct rq_flags rf;
-	struct rq *rq;
-	int ret = 0;
-
-	rq = __task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
-	if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
-		update_rq_clock(rq);
-		if (p->se.sched_delayed)
-			enqueue_task(rq, p, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK | ENQUEUE_DELAYED);
-		if (!task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
-			/*
-			 * When on_rq && !on_cpu the task is preempted, see if
-			 * it should preempt the task that is current now.
-			 */
-			wakeup_preempt(rq, p, wake_flags);
+	CLASS(__task_rq_lock, rq_guard)(p);
+	struct rq *rq = rq_guard.rq;
+
+	if (!task_on_rq_queued(p))
+		return 0;
+
+	update_rq_clock(rq);
+	if (p->se.sched_delayed) {
+		int queue_flags = ENQUEUE_DELAYED | ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK;
+
+		/*
+		 * Since sched_delayed means we cannot be current anywhere,
+		 * dequeue it here and have it fall through to the
+		 * select_task_rq() case further along the ttwu() path.
+		 */
+		if (rq->nr_running > 1 && p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1) {
+			dequeue_task(rq, p, DEQUEUE_SLEEP | queue_flags);
+			return 0;
 		}
-		ttwu_do_wakeup(p);
-		ret = 1;
+
+		enqueue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
+	}
+	if (!task_on_cpu(rq, p)) {
+		/*
+		 * When on_rq && !on_cpu the task is preempted, see if
+		 * it should preempt the task that is current now.
+		 */
+		wakeup_preempt(rq, p, wake_flags);
 	}
-	__task_rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
+	ttwu_do_wakeup(p);

-	return ret;
+	return 1;
 }

 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1779,6 +1779,11 @@ task_rq_unlock(struct rq *rq, struct tas
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, rf->flags);
 }

+DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(__task_rq_lock, struct task_struct,
+		    _T->rq = __task_rq_lock(_T->lock, &_T->rf),
+		    __task_rq_unlock(_T->rq, &_T->rf),
+		    struct rq *rq; struct rq_flags rf)
+
 DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(task_rq_lock, struct task_struct,
 		    _T->rq = task_rq_lock(_T->lock, &_T->rf),
 		    task_rq_unlock(_T->rq, _T->lock, &_T->rf),