Message-ID: <1ca889fd-6ead-4d4f-a3c7-361ea05bb659@kylinos.cn>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 18:39:25 +0800
From: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
 len brown <len.brown@...el.com>, pavel machek <pavel@...nel.org>,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] PM / Freezer: Skip zombie/dead processes to reduce


在 2025/7/17 17:50, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:02 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn> wrote:
>> HI Rafael,
>>
>> 在 2025/7/16 20:26, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:26 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This patch series improves the performance of the process freezer by
>>>> skipping zombie tasks during freezing.
>>>>
>>>> In the suspend and hibernation paths, the freezer traverses all tasks
>>>> and attempts to freeze them. However, zombie tasks (EXIT_ZOMBIE with
>>>> PF_EXITING) are already dead — they are not schedulable and cannot enter
>>>> the refrigerator. Attempting to freeze such tasks is redundant and
>>>> unnecessarily increases freezing time.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, on systems under fork storm conditions (e.g., many
>>>> short-lived processes quickly becoming zombies), the number of zombie tasks
>>>> can spike into the thousands or more. We observed that this causes the
>>>> freezer loop to waste significant time processing tasks that are guaranteed
>>>> to not need freezing.
>>> I think that the discussion with Peter regarding this has not been concluded.
>>>
>>> I thought that there was an alternative patch proposed during that
>>> discussion.  If I'm not mistaken about this, what happened to that
>>> patch?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>> Currently, the general consensus from the discussion is that skipping
>> zombie or dead tasks can help reduce locking overhead during freezing.
> Peter doesn't seem to be convinced that this is the case.
>

Yeah.

>> The remaining question is how best to implement that.
>>
>> Peter suggested skipping all tasks with PF_NOFREEZE, which would make
>> the logic more general and cover all cases. However, as Oleg pointed
>> out, the current implementation based on PF_NOFREEZE might be problematic.
>>
>> My current thought is that exit_state already reliably covers all
>> exiting user processes, and it’s a good fit for skipping user-space
>> tasks. For the kernel side, we may safely skip a few kernel threads like
>> kthreadd that set PF_NOFREEZE and never change it — we can consider
>> refining this further in the future.
> There is the counter argument of special-casing of p->exit_state and
> the relatively weak justification for it.
>
> You have created a synthetic workload where it matters, but how likely
> is it to be the case in practice?


Our initial thought was that the freezer should primarily focus on tasks 
that can be frozen. If a task is not freezable and its state will not 
change (such as kernel threads that have PF_NOFREEZE set permanently),

  it should be safe to skip it during the iteration. This helps to 
reduce unnecessary overhead when handling a large number of such tasks.

We do not insist that this is the only correct way to implement the 
optimization — if there’s a better approach that is equally safe and 
more general, we are happy to adopt it.

In practice, the improvement becomes noticeable only when there are a 
lot of tasks present. So the benefit is scenario-dependent, and we agree 
that real-world relevance should be considered carefully.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists