Message-ID: <86fad2bd-643d-4d3a-bd41-8ffd9389428b@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:32:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] sched: Move task_mm_cid_work to mm work_struct



On Wed, 2025-02-19 at 10:13 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2025-02-19 06:31, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
>>> > Currently, the task_mm_cid_work function is called in a task work
>>> > triggered by a scheduler tick to frequently compact the mm_cids of
>>> > each
>>> > process. This can delay the execution of the corresponding thread
>>> > for
>>> > the entire duration of the function, negatively affecting the
>>> > response
>>> > in case of real time tasks. In practice, we observe
>>> > task_mm_cid_work
>>> > increasing the latency of 30-35us on a 128 cores system, this order
>>> > of
>>> > magnitude is meaningful under PREEMPT_RT.
>>> >
>>> > Run the task_mm_cid_work in a new work_struct connected to the
>>> > mm_struct rather than in the task context before returning to
>>> > userspace.
>>> >
>>> > This work_struct is initialised with the mm and disabled before
>>> > freeing
>>> > it. Its execution is no longer triggered by scheduler ticks: the
>>> > queuing
>>> > of the work happens while returning to userspace in
>>> > __rseq_handle_notify_resume, maintaining the checks to avoid
>>> > running
>>> > more frequently than MM_CID_SCAN_DELAY.
>>> >
>>> > The main advantage of this change is that the function can be
>>> > offloaded
>>> > to a different CPU and even preempted by RT tasks.
>>> >
>>> > Moreover, this new behaviour is more predictable with periodic
>>> > tasks
>>> > with short runtime, which may rarely run during a scheduler tick.
>>> > Now, the work is always scheduled when the task returns to
>>> > userspace.
>>> >
>>> > The work is disabled during mmdrop, since the function cannot sleep
>>> > in
>>> > all kernel configurations, we cannot wait for possibly running work
>>> > items to terminate. We make sure the mm is valid in case the task
>>> > is
>>> > terminating by reserving it with mmgrab/mmdrop, returning
>>> > prematurely if
>>> > we are really the last user before mmgrab.
>>> > This situation is unlikely since we don't schedule the work for
>>> > exiting
>>> > tasks, but we cannot rule it out.
>>> >
>>> > Fixes: 223baf9d17f2 ("sched: Fix performance regression introduced
>>> > by mm_cid")
>>> > Signed-off-by: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
>>> > ---
>>> > diff --git a/kernel/rseq.c b/kernel/rseq.c
>>> > index 442aba29bc4cf..f8394ebbb6f4d 100644
>>> > --- a/kernel/rseq.c
>>> > +++ b/kernel/rseq.c
>>> > @@ -419,6 +419,7 @@ void __rseq_handle_notify_resume(struct ksignal
>>> > *ksig, struct pt_regs *regs)
>>> >    }
>>> >    if (unlikely(rseq_update_cpu_node_id(t)))
>>> >    goto error;
>>> > + task_queue_mm_cid(t);
>>> >    return;
>>> >  
>>> >   error:
>>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> > index 9aecd914ac691..ee35f9962444b 100644
>>> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> > @@ -5663,7 +5663,6 @@ void sched_tick(void)
>>> >    resched_latency = cpu_resched_latency(rq);
>>> >    calc_global_load_tick(rq);
>>> >    sched_core_tick(rq);
>>> > - task_tick_mm_cid(rq, donor);
>>
>> I agree that this approach is promising, however I am concerned about
>> the fact that a task running alone on its runqueue (thus without
>> preemption) for a long time will never recompact mm_cid, and also
>> will never update its mm_cid field.
>>
>> So I am tempted to insert this in the sched_tick to cover that
>> scenario:
>>
>>       rseq_preempt(current);
>>
>> This would ensure that the task runs __rseq_handle_notify_resume() at
>> least each tick.
>>

Right, I thought about this scenario but forgot to add it in the final patch.
We could have a test doing that: instead of sleeping, the task busy waits.

Does __rseq_handle_notify_resume need to run in this case, besides for the cid compaction, I mean? Otherwise we could again just enqueu
the work from there.

I'll give a shot for both.


>>> >    scx_tick(rq);
>>> >  
>>> >    rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
>>> > @@ -10530,22 +10529,16 @@ static void
>>> > sched_mm_cid_remote_clear_weight(struct mm_struct *mm, int cpu,
>>> >    sched_mm_cid_remote_clear(mm, pcpu_cid, cpu);
>>> >   }
>>> >  
>>> > -static void task_mm_cid_work(struct callback_head *work)
>>> > +void task_mm_cid_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>> >   {
>>> >    unsigned long now = jiffies, old_scan, next_scan;
>>> > - struct task_struct *t = current;
>>> >    struct cpumask *cidmask;
>>> > - struct mm_struct *mm;
>>> > + struct mm_struct *mm = container_of(work, struct mm_struct,
>>> > cid_work);
>>> >    int weight, cpu;
>>> >  
>>> > - SCHED_WARN_ON(t != container_of(work, struct task_struct,
>>> > cid_work));
>>> > -
>>> > - work->next = work; /* Prevent double-add */
>>> > - if (t->flags & PF_EXITING)
>>> > - return;
>>> > - mm = t->mm;
>>> > - if (!mm)
>>> > + if (!atomic_read(&mm->mm_count))
>>> >    return;
>>> > + mmgrab(mm);
>>
>> AFAIU this is racy with respect to re-use of mm struct.
>>
>> I recommend that you move mmgrab() to task_queue_mm_cid() just before
>> invoking schedule_work. That way you ensure that the mm count never
>> reaches 0 while there is work in flight (and therefore guarantee that
>> the mm is not re-used).
>>


Mmh good point, in that case I think we can still keep on testing the mm_count and return prematurely if it's 1 (we are the only user and the task exited before the work got scheduled).
That would be a safe assumption if we don't get to 0, wouldn't it?

Thanks,
Gabriele

Powered by blists - more mailing lists