linux_dsm_epyc7002/kernel/sched/cpupri.c

242 lines
6.7 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* kernel/sched/cpupri.c
*
* CPU priority management
*
* Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Novell
*
* Author: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
*
* This code tracks the priority of each CPU so that global migration
* decisions are easy to calculate. Each CPU can be in a state as follows:
*
* (INVALID), IDLE, NORMAL, RT1, ... RT99
*
* going from the lowest priority to the highest. CPUs in the INVALID state
* are not eligible for routing. The system maintains this state with
* a 2 dimensional bitmap (the first for priority class, the second for CPUs
* in that class). Therefore a typical application without affinity
* restrictions can find a suitable CPU with O(1) complexity (e.g. two bit
* searches). For tasks with affinity restrictions, the algorithm has a
* worst case complexity of O(min(102, nr_domcpus)), though the scenario that
* yields the worst case search is fairly contrived.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2
* of the License.
*/
#include "sched.h"
/* Convert between a 140 based task->prio, and our 102 based cpupri */
static int convert_prio(int prio)
{
int cpupri;
if (prio == CPUPRI_INVALID)
cpupri = CPUPRI_INVALID;
else if (prio == MAX_PRIO)
cpupri = CPUPRI_IDLE;
else if (prio >= MAX_RT_PRIO)
cpupri = CPUPRI_NORMAL;
else
cpupri = MAX_RT_PRIO - prio + 1;
return cpupri;
}
/**
* cpupri_find - find the best (lowest-pri) CPU in the system
* @cp: The cpupri context
* @p: The task
* @lowest_mask: A mask to fill in with selected CPUs (or NULL)
*
* Note: This function returns the recommended CPUs as calculated during the
* current invocation. By the time the call returns, the CPUs may have in
* fact changed priorities any number of times. While not ideal, it is not
* an issue of correctness since the normal rebalancer logic will correct
* any discrepancies created by racing against the uncertainty of the current
* priority configuration.
*
* Return: (int)bool - CPUs were found
*/
int cpupri_find(struct cpupri *cp, struct task_struct *p,
struct cpumask *lowest_mask)
{
int idx = 0;
int task_pri = convert_prio(p->prio);
BUG_ON(task_pri >= CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES);
sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock The cpupri vec->lock has been showing up as a top contention lately. This is because of the RT push/pull logic takes an agressive approach for migrating RT tasks. The cpupri logic is in place to improve the performance of the push/pull when dealing with large number CPU machines. The problem though is a vec->lock is required, where a vec is a global per RT priority structure. That is, if there are lots of RT tasks at the same priority, every time they are added or removed from the RT queue, this global vec->lock is taken. Now that more kernel threads are becoming RT (RCU boost and threaded interrupts) this is becoming much more of an issue. There are two variables that are being synced by the vec->lock. The cpupri bitmask, and the vec->counter. The cpupri bitmask is one bit per priority. If a RT priority vec has a process queued, then the vec->count is > 0 and the cpupri bitmask is set for that RT priority. If the cpupri bitmask gets out of sync with the vec->counter, we could end up pushing a low proirity RT task to a high priority queue. That RT task that could have run immediately could be queued on a run queue with a higher priority task indefinitely. The solution is not to use the cpupri bitmask and just look at the vec->count directly when doing a pull. The cpupri bitmask is just a fast way to scan the RT priorities when a pull is made. Instead of using the bitmask, and just examine all RT priorities, and look at the vec->counts, we could eliminate the vec->lock. The scan of RT tasks is to find a run queue that we can push an RT task to, and we do not push to a high priority queue, thus the scan only needs to go from 1 to RT task->prio, and not all 100 RT priorities. The push algorithm, which does the scan of RT priorities (and scan of the bitmask) only happens when we have an overloaded RT run queue (more than one RT task queued). The grabbing of the vec->lock happens every time any RT task is queued or dequeued on the run queue for that priority. The slowing down of the scan by not using a bitmask is negligible by the speed up of removing the vec->lock contention, and replacing it with an atomic counter and memory barrier. To prove this, I wrote a patch that times both the loop and the code that grabs the vec->locks. I passed the patches to various people (and companies) to test and show the results. I let everyone choose their own load to test, giving different loads on the system, for various different setups. Here's some of the results: (snipping to a few CPUs to not make this change log huge, but the results were consistent across the entire system). System 1 (24 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- [...] cpu 20: loop 3057 1.766 0.061 0.642 1963.170 vec 6782949 90.469 0.089 0.414 2811760.503 cpu 21: loop 2617 1.723 0.062 0.641 1679.074 vec 6782810 90.499 0.089 0.291 1978499.900 cpu 22: loop 2212 1.863 0.063 0.699 1547.160 vec 6767244 85.685 0.089 0.435 2949676.898 cpu 23: loop 2320 2.013 0.062 0.594 1380.265 vec 6781694 87.923 0.088 0.431 2928538.224 After patch: cpu 20: loop 2078 1.579 0.061 0.533 1108.006 vec 6164555 5.704 0.060 0.143 885185.809 cpu 21: loop 2268 1.712 0.065 0.575 1305.248 vec 6153376 5.558 0.060 0.187 1154960.469 cpu 22: loop 1542 1.639 0.095 0.533 823.249 vec 6156510 5.720 0.060 0.190 1172727.232 cpu 23: loop 1650 1.733 0.068 0.545 900.781 vec 6170784 5.533 0.060 0.167 1034287.953 All times are in microseconds. The 'loop' is the amount of time spent doing the loop across the priorities (before patch uses bitmask). the 'vec' is the amount of time in the code that requires grabbing the vec->lock. The second patch just does not have the vec lock, but encompasses the same code. Amazingly the loop code even went down on average. The vec code went from .5 down to .18, that's more than half the time spent! Note, more than one test was run, but they all had the same results. System 2 (64 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5410840 277.954 0.084 0.782 4232895.727 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4915648 188.399 0.084 0.570 2803220.301 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5356076 276.417 0.085 0.786 4214544.548 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4891837 170.531 0.085 0.799 3910948.833 After patch: cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5365118 5.080 0.021 0.063 340490.267 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4898590 1.757 0.019 0.071 347903.615 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5737130 3.067 0.021 0.119 687108.734 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4903228 1.822 0.021 0.071 348506.477 The test run during the measurement did not have any (very few, from other CPUs) RT tasks pushing. But this shows that it helped out tremendously with the contention, as the contention happens because the vec->lock is taken only on queuing at an RT priority, and different CPUs that queue tasks at the same priority will have contention. I tested on my own 4 CPU machine with the following results: Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2377 1.489 0.158 0.588 1398.395 vec 4484 770.146 2.301 4.396 19711.755 cpu 1: loop 2169 1.962 0.160 0.576 1250.110 vec 4425 152.769 2.297 4.030 17834.228 cpu 2: loop 2324 1.749 0.155 0.559 1299.799 vec 4368 779.632 2.325 4.665 20379.268 cpu 3: loop 2325 1.629 0.157 0.561 1306.113 vec 4650 408.782 2.394 4.348 20222.577 After patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2121 1.616 0.113 0.636 1349.189 vec 4303 1.151 0.225 0.421 1811.966 cpu 1: loop 2130 1.638 0.178 0.644 1372.927 vec 4627 1.379 0.235 0.428 1983.648 cpu 2: loop 2056 1.464 0.165 0.637 1310.141 vec 4471 1.311 0.217 0.433 1937.927 cpu 3: loop 2154 1.481 0.162 0.601 1295.083 vec 4236 1.253 0.230 0.425 1803.008 This was running my migrate.c code that can be found at: http://lwn.net/Articles/425763/ The migrate code does stress the RT tasks a bit. This shows that the loop did increase a little after the patch, but not by much. The vec code dropped dramatically. From 4.3us down to .42us. That's a 10x improvement! Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de> Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> Tested-by: Matthew Hank Sabins<msabins@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Reviewed-by: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312317372.18583.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03 03:36:12 +07:00
for (idx = 0; idx < task_pri; idx++) {
struct cpupri_vec *vec = &cp->pri_to_cpu[idx];
sched/cpupri: Fix memory barriers for vec updates to always be in order [ This patch actually compiles. Thanks to Mike Galbraith for pointing that out. I compiled and booted this patch with no issues. ] Re-examining the cpupri patch, I see there's a possible race because the update of the two priorities vec->counts are not protected by a memory barrier. When a RT runqueue is overloaded and wants to push an RT task to another runqueue, it scans the RT priority vectors in a loop from lowest priority to highest. When we queue or dequeue an RT task that changes a runqueue's highest priority task, we update the vectors to show that a runqueue is rated at a different priority. To do this, we first set the new priority mask, and increment the vec->count, and then set the old priority mask by decrementing the vec->count. If we are lowering the runqueue's RT priority rating, it will trigger a RT pull, and we do not care if we miss pushing to this runqueue or not. But if we raise the priority, but the priority is still lower than an RT task that is looking to be pushed, we must make sure that this runqueue is still seen by the push algorithm (the loop). Because the loop reads from lowest to highest, and the new priority is set before the old one is cleared, we will either see the new or old priority set and the vector will be checked. But! Since there's no memory barrier between the updates of the two, the old count may be decremented first before the new count is incremented. This means the loop may see the old count of zero and skip it, and also the new count of zero before it was updated. A possible runqueue that the RT task could move to could be missed. A conditional memory barrier is placed between the vec->count updates and is only called when both updates are done. The smp_wmb() has also been changed to smp_mb__before_atomic_inc/dec(), as they are not needed by archs that already synchronize atomic_inc/dec(). The smp_rmb() has been moved to be called at every iteration of the loop so that the race between seeing the two updates is visible by each iteration of the loop, as an arch is free to optimize the reading of memory of the counters in the loop. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312547269.18583.194.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-05 19:27:49 +07:00
int skip = 0;
sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock The cpupri vec->lock has been showing up as a top contention lately. This is because of the RT push/pull logic takes an agressive approach for migrating RT tasks. The cpupri logic is in place to improve the performance of the push/pull when dealing with large number CPU machines. The problem though is a vec->lock is required, where a vec is a global per RT priority structure. That is, if there are lots of RT tasks at the same priority, every time they are added or removed from the RT queue, this global vec->lock is taken. Now that more kernel threads are becoming RT (RCU boost and threaded interrupts) this is becoming much more of an issue. There are two variables that are being synced by the vec->lock. The cpupri bitmask, and the vec->counter. The cpupri bitmask is one bit per priority. If a RT priority vec has a process queued, then the vec->count is > 0 and the cpupri bitmask is set for that RT priority. If the cpupri bitmask gets out of sync with the vec->counter, we could end up pushing a low proirity RT task to a high priority queue. That RT task that could have run immediately could be queued on a run queue with a higher priority task indefinitely. The solution is not to use the cpupri bitmask and just look at the vec->count directly when doing a pull. The cpupri bitmask is just a fast way to scan the RT priorities when a pull is made. Instead of using the bitmask, and just examine all RT priorities, and look at the vec->counts, we could eliminate the vec->lock. The scan of RT tasks is to find a run queue that we can push an RT task to, and we do not push to a high priority queue, thus the scan only needs to go from 1 to RT task->prio, and not all 100 RT priorities. The push algorithm, which does the scan of RT priorities (and scan of the bitmask) only happens when we have an overloaded RT run queue (more than one RT task queued). The grabbing of the vec->lock happens every time any RT task is queued or dequeued on the run queue for that priority. The slowing down of the scan by not using a bitmask is negligible by the speed up of removing the vec->lock contention, and replacing it with an atomic counter and memory barrier. To prove this, I wrote a patch that times both the loop and the code that grabs the vec->locks. I passed the patches to various people (and companies) to test and show the results. I let everyone choose their own load to test, giving different loads on the system, for various different setups. Here's some of the results: (snipping to a few CPUs to not make this change log huge, but the results were consistent across the entire system). System 1 (24 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- [...] cpu 20: loop 3057 1.766 0.061 0.642 1963.170 vec 6782949 90.469 0.089 0.414 2811760.503 cpu 21: loop 2617 1.723 0.062 0.641 1679.074 vec 6782810 90.499 0.089 0.291 1978499.900 cpu 22: loop 2212 1.863 0.063 0.699 1547.160 vec 6767244 85.685 0.089 0.435 2949676.898 cpu 23: loop 2320 2.013 0.062 0.594 1380.265 vec 6781694 87.923 0.088 0.431 2928538.224 After patch: cpu 20: loop 2078 1.579 0.061 0.533 1108.006 vec 6164555 5.704 0.060 0.143 885185.809 cpu 21: loop 2268 1.712 0.065 0.575 1305.248 vec 6153376 5.558 0.060 0.187 1154960.469 cpu 22: loop 1542 1.639 0.095 0.533 823.249 vec 6156510 5.720 0.060 0.190 1172727.232 cpu 23: loop 1650 1.733 0.068 0.545 900.781 vec 6170784 5.533 0.060 0.167 1034287.953 All times are in microseconds. The 'loop' is the amount of time spent doing the loop across the priorities (before patch uses bitmask). the 'vec' is the amount of time in the code that requires grabbing the vec->lock. The second patch just does not have the vec lock, but encompasses the same code. Amazingly the loop code even went down on average. The vec code went from .5 down to .18, that's more than half the time spent! Note, more than one test was run, but they all had the same results. System 2 (64 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5410840 277.954 0.084 0.782 4232895.727 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4915648 188.399 0.084 0.570 2803220.301 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5356076 276.417 0.085 0.786 4214544.548 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4891837 170.531 0.085 0.799 3910948.833 After patch: cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5365118 5.080 0.021 0.063 340490.267 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4898590 1.757 0.019 0.071 347903.615 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5737130 3.067 0.021 0.119 687108.734 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4903228 1.822 0.021 0.071 348506.477 The test run during the measurement did not have any (very few, from other CPUs) RT tasks pushing. But this shows that it helped out tremendously with the contention, as the contention happens because the vec->lock is taken only on queuing at an RT priority, and different CPUs that queue tasks at the same priority will have contention. I tested on my own 4 CPU machine with the following results: Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2377 1.489 0.158 0.588 1398.395 vec 4484 770.146 2.301 4.396 19711.755 cpu 1: loop 2169 1.962 0.160 0.576 1250.110 vec 4425 152.769 2.297 4.030 17834.228 cpu 2: loop 2324 1.749 0.155 0.559 1299.799 vec 4368 779.632 2.325 4.665 20379.268 cpu 3: loop 2325 1.629 0.157 0.561 1306.113 vec 4650 408.782 2.394 4.348 20222.577 After patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2121 1.616 0.113 0.636 1349.189 vec 4303 1.151 0.225 0.421 1811.966 cpu 1: loop 2130 1.638 0.178 0.644 1372.927 vec 4627 1.379 0.235 0.428 1983.648 cpu 2: loop 2056 1.464 0.165 0.637 1310.141 vec 4471 1.311 0.217 0.433 1937.927 cpu 3: loop 2154 1.481 0.162 0.601 1295.083 vec 4236 1.253 0.230 0.425 1803.008 This was running my migrate.c code that can be found at: http://lwn.net/Articles/425763/ The migrate code does stress the RT tasks a bit. This shows that the loop did increase a little after the patch, but not by much. The vec code dropped dramatically. From 4.3us down to .42us. That's a 10x improvement! Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de> Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> Tested-by: Matthew Hank Sabins<msabins@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Reviewed-by: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312317372.18583.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03 03:36:12 +07:00
if (!atomic_read(&(vec)->count))
sched/cpupri: Fix memory barriers for vec updates to always be in order [ This patch actually compiles. Thanks to Mike Galbraith for pointing that out. I compiled and booted this patch with no issues. ] Re-examining the cpupri patch, I see there's a possible race because the update of the two priorities vec->counts are not protected by a memory barrier. When a RT runqueue is overloaded and wants to push an RT task to another runqueue, it scans the RT priority vectors in a loop from lowest priority to highest. When we queue or dequeue an RT task that changes a runqueue's highest priority task, we update the vectors to show that a runqueue is rated at a different priority. To do this, we first set the new priority mask, and increment the vec->count, and then set the old priority mask by decrementing the vec->count. If we are lowering the runqueue's RT priority rating, it will trigger a RT pull, and we do not care if we miss pushing to this runqueue or not. But if we raise the priority, but the priority is still lower than an RT task that is looking to be pushed, we must make sure that this runqueue is still seen by the push algorithm (the loop). Because the loop reads from lowest to highest, and the new priority is set before the old one is cleared, we will either see the new or old priority set and the vector will be checked. But! Since there's no memory barrier between the updates of the two, the old count may be decremented first before the new count is incremented. This means the loop may see the old count of zero and skip it, and also the new count of zero before it was updated. A possible runqueue that the RT task could move to could be missed. A conditional memory barrier is placed between the vec->count updates and is only called when both updates are done. The smp_wmb() has also been changed to smp_mb__before_atomic_inc/dec(), as they are not needed by archs that already synchronize atomic_inc/dec(). The smp_rmb() has been moved to be called at every iteration of the loop so that the race between seeing the two updates is visible by each iteration of the loop, as an arch is free to optimize the reading of memory of the counters in the loop. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312547269.18583.194.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-05 19:27:49 +07:00
skip = 1;
sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock The cpupri vec->lock has been showing up as a top contention lately. This is because of the RT push/pull logic takes an agressive approach for migrating RT tasks. The cpupri logic is in place to improve the performance of the push/pull when dealing with large number CPU machines. The problem though is a vec->lock is required, where a vec is a global per RT priority structure. That is, if there are lots of RT tasks at the same priority, every time they are added or removed from the RT queue, this global vec->lock is taken. Now that more kernel threads are becoming RT (RCU boost and threaded interrupts) this is becoming much more of an issue. There are two variables that are being synced by the vec->lock. The cpupri bitmask, and the vec->counter. The cpupri bitmask is one bit per priority. If a RT priority vec has a process queued, then the vec->count is > 0 and the cpupri bitmask is set for that RT priority. If the cpupri bitmask gets out of sync with the vec->counter, we could end up pushing a low proirity RT task to a high priority queue. That RT task that could have run immediately could be queued on a run queue with a higher priority task indefinitely. The solution is not to use the cpupri bitmask and just look at the vec->count directly when doing a pull. The cpupri bitmask is just a fast way to scan the RT priorities when a pull is made. Instead of using the bitmask, and just examine all RT priorities, and look at the vec->counts, we could eliminate the vec->lock. The scan of RT tasks is to find a run queue that we can push an RT task to, and we do not push to a high priority queue, thus the scan only needs to go from 1 to RT task->prio, and not all 100 RT priorities. The push algorithm, which does the scan of RT priorities (and scan of the bitmask) only happens when we have an overloaded RT run queue (more than one RT task queued). The grabbing of the vec->lock happens every time any RT task is queued or dequeued on the run queue for that priority. The slowing down of the scan by not using a bitmask is negligible by the speed up of removing the vec->lock contention, and replacing it with an atomic counter and memory barrier. To prove this, I wrote a patch that times both the loop and the code that grabs the vec->locks. I passed the patches to various people (and companies) to test and show the results. I let everyone choose their own load to test, giving different loads on the system, for various different setups. Here's some of the results: (snipping to a few CPUs to not make this change log huge, but the results were consistent across the entire system). System 1 (24 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- [...] cpu 20: loop 3057 1.766 0.061 0.642 1963.170 vec 6782949 90.469 0.089 0.414 2811760.503 cpu 21: loop 2617 1.723 0.062 0.641 1679.074 vec 6782810 90.499 0.089 0.291 1978499.900 cpu 22: loop 2212 1.863 0.063 0.699 1547.160 vec 6767244 85.685 0.089 0.435 2949676.898 cpu 23: loop 2320 2.013 0.062 0.594 1380.265 vec 6781694 87.923 0.088 0.431 2928538.224 After patch: cpu 20: loop 2078 1.579 0.061 0.533 1108.006 vec 6164555 5.704 0.060 0.143 885185.809 cpu 21: loop 2268 1.712 0.065 0.575 1305.248 vec 6153376 5.558 0.060 0.187 1154960.469 cpu 22: loop 1542 1.639 0.095 0.533 823.249 vec 6156510 5.720 0.060 0.190 1172727.232 cpu 23: loop 1650 1.733 0.068 0.545 900.781 vec 6170784 5.533 0.060 0.167 1034287.953 All times are in microseconds. The 'loop' is the amount of time spent doing the loop across the priorities (before patch uses bitmask). the 'vec' is the amount of time in the code that requires grabbing the vec->lock. The second patch just does not have the vec lock, but encompasses the same code. Amazingly the loop code even went down on average. The vec code went from .5 down to .18, that's more than half the time spent! Note, more than one test was run, but they all had the same results. System 2 (64 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5410840 277.954 0.084 0.782 4232895.727 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4915648 188.399 0.084 0.570 2803220.301 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5356076 276.417 0.085 0.786 4214544.548 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4891837 170.531 0.085 0.799 3910948.833 After patch: cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5365118 5.080 0.021 0.063 340490.267 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4898590 1.757 0.019 0.071 347903.615 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5737130 3.067 0.021 0.119 687108.734 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4903228 1.822 0.021 0.071 348506.477 The test run during the measurement did not have any (very few, from other CPUs) RT tasks pushing. But this shows that it helped out tremendously with the contention, as the contention happens because the vec->lock is taken only on queuing at an RT priority, and different CPUs that queue tasks at the same priority will have contention. I tested on my own 4 CPU machine with the following results: Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2377 1.489 0.158 0.588 1398.395 vec 4484 770.146 2.301 4.396 19711.755 cpu 1: loop 2169 1.962 0.160 0.576 1250.110 vec 4425 152.769 2.297 4.030 17834.228 cpu 2: loop 2324 1.749 0.155 0.559 1299.799 vec 4368 779.632 2.325 4.665 20379.268 cpu 3: loop 2325 1.629 0.157 0.561 1306.113 vec 4650 408.782 2.394 4.348 20222.577 After patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2121 1.616 0.113 0.636 1349.189 vec 4303 1.151 0.225 0.421 1811.966 cpu 1: loop 2130 1.638 0.178 0.644 1372.927 vec 4627 1.379 0.235 0.428 1983.648 cpu 2: loop 2056 1.464 0.165 0.637 1310.141 vec 4471 1.311 0.217 0.433 1937.927 cpu 3: loop 2154 1.481 0.162 0.601 1295.083 vec 4236 1.253 0.230 0.425 1803.008 This was running my migrate.c code that can be found at: http://lwn.net/Articles/425763/ The migrate code does stress the RT tasks a bit. This shows that the loop did increase a little after the patch, but not by much. The vec code dropped dramatically. From 4.3us down to .42us. That's a 10x improvement! Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de> Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> Tested-by: Matthew Hank Sabins<msabins@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Reviewed-by: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312317372.18583.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03 03:36:12 +07:00
/*
* When looking at the vector, we need to read the counter,
* do a memory barrier, then read the mask.
*
* Note: This is still all racey, but we can deal with it.
* Ideally, we only want to look at masks that are set.
*
* If a mask is not set, then the only thing wrong is that we
* did a little more work than necessary.
*
* If we read a zero count but the mask is set, because of the
* memory barriers, that can only happen when the highest prio
* task for a run queue has left the run queue, in which case,
* it will be followed by a pull. If the task we are processing
* fails to find a proper place to go, that pull request will
* pull this task if the run queue is running at a lower
* priority.
*/
smp_rmb();
sched/cpupri: Fix memory barriers for vec updates to always be in order [ This patch actually compiles. Thanks to Mike Galbraith for pointing that out. I compiled and booted this patch with no issues. ] Re-examining the cpupri patch, I see there's a possible race because the update of the two priorities vec->counts are not protected by a memory barrier. When a RT runqueue is overloaded and wants to push an RT task to another runqueue, it scans the RT priority vectors in a loop from lowest priority to highest. When we queue or dequeue an RT task that changes a runqueue's highest priority task, we update the vectors to show that a runqueue is rated at a different priority. To do this, we first set the new priority mask, and increment the vec->count, and then set the old priority mask by decrementing the vec->count. If we are lowering the runqueue's RT priority rating, it will trigger a RT pull, and we do not care if we miss pushing to this runqueue or not. But if we raise the priority, but the priority is still lower than an RT task that is looking to be pushed, we must make sure that this runqueue is still seen by the push algorithm (the loop). Because the loop reads from lowest to highest, and the new priority is set before the old one is cleared, we will either see the new or old priority set and the vector will be checked. But! Since there's no memory barrier between the updates of the two, the old count may be decremented first before the new count is incremented. This means the loop may see the old count of zero and skip it, and also the new count of zero before it was updated. A possible runqueue that the RT task could move to could be missed. A conditional memory barrier is placed between the vec->count updates and is only called when both updates are done. The smp_wmb() has also been changed to smp_mb__before_atomic_inc/dec(), as they are not needed by archs that already synchronize atomic_inc/dec(). The smp_rmb() has been moved to be called at every iteration of the loop so that the race between seeing the two updates is visible by each iteration of the loop, as an arch is free to optimize the reading of memory of the counters in the loop. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312547269.18583.194.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-05 19:27:49 +07:00
/* Need to do the rmb for every iteration */
if (skip)
continue;
if (cpumask_any_and(&p->cpus_allowed, vec->mask) >= nr_cpu_ids)
continue;
sched: Fix race in cpupri introduced by cpumask_var changes Background: Several race conditions in the scheduler have cropped up recently, which Steven and I have tracked down using ftrace. The most recent one turns out to be a race in how the scheduler determines a suitable migration target for RT tasks, introduced recently with commit: commit 68e74568fbe5854952355e942acca51f138096d9 Date: Tue Nov 25 02:35:13 2008 +1030 sched: convert struct cpupri_vec cpumask_var_t. The original design of cpupri allowed lockless readers to quickly determine a best-estimate target. Races between the pri_active bitmap and the vec->mask were handled in the original code because we would detect and return "0" when this occured. The design was predicated on the *effective* atomicity (*) of caching the result of cpus_and() between the cpus_allowed and the vec->mask. Commit 68e74568 changed the behavior such that vec->mask is accessed multiple times. This introduces a subtle race, the result of which means we can have a result that returns "1", but with an empty bitmap. *) yes, we know cpus_and() is not a locked operator across the entire composite array, but it is implicitly atomic on a per-word basis which is all the design required to work. Implementation: Rather than forgoing the lockless design, or reverting to a stack-based cpumask_t, we simply check for when the race has been encountered and continue processing in the event that the race is hit. This renders the removal race as if the priority bit had been atomically cleared as well, and allows the algorithm to execute correctly. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> CC: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> LKML-Reference: <20090730145728.25226.92769.stgit@dev.haskins.net> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-07-30 21:57:28 +07:00
if (lowest_mask) {
cpumask_and(lowest_mask, &p->cpus_allowed, vec->mask);
sched: Fix race in cpupri introduced by cpumask_var changes Background: Several race conditions in the scheduler have cropped up recently, which Steven and I have tracked down using ftrace. The most recent one turns out to be a race in how the scheduler determines a suitable migration target for RT tasks, introduced recently with commit: commit 68e74568fbe5854952355e942acca51f138096d9 Date: Tue Nov 25 02:35:13 2008 +1030 sched: convert struct cpupri_vec cpumask_var_t. The original design of cpupri allowed lockless readers to quickly determine a best-estimate target. Races between the pri_active bitmap and the vec->mask were handled in the original code because we would detect and return "0" when this occured. The design was predicated on the *effective* atomicity (*) of caching the result of cpus_and() between the cpus_allowed and the vec->mask. Commit 68e74568 changed the behavior such that vec->mask is accessed multiple times. This introduces a subtle race, the result of which means we can have a result that returns "1", but with an empty bitmap. *) yes, we know cpus_and() is not a locked operator across the entire composite array, but it is implicitly atomic on a per-word basis which is all the design required to work. Implementation: Rather than forgoing the lockless design, or reverting to a stack-based cpumask_t, we simply check for when the race has been encountered and continue processing in the event that the race is hit. This renders the removal race as if the priority bit had been atomically cleared as well, and allows the algorithm to execute correctly. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> CC: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> LKML-Reference: <20090730145728.25226.92769.stgit@dev.haskins.net> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-07-30 21:57:28 +07:00
/*
* We have to ensure that we have at least one bit
* still set in the array, since the map could have
* been concurrently emptied between the first and
* second reads of vec->mask. If we hit this
* condition, simply act as though we never hit this
* priority level and continue on.
*/
if (cpumask_any(lowest_mask) >= nr_cpu_ids)
continue;
}
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
/**
* cpupri_set - update the CPU priority setting
* @cp: The cpupri context
* @cpu: The target CPU
* @newpri: The priority (INVALID-RT99) to assign to this CPU
*
* Note: Assumes cpu_rq(cpu)->lock is locked
*
* Returns: (void)
*/
void cpupri_set(struct cpupri *cp, int cpu, int newpri)
{
int *currpri = &cp->cpu_to_pri[cpu];
int oldpri = *currpri;
int do_mb = 0;
newpri = convert_prio(newpri);
BUG_ON(newpri >= CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES);
if (newpri == oldpri)
return;
/*
* If the CPU was currently mapped to a different value, we
* need to map it to the new value then remove the old value.
* Note, we must add the new value first, otherwise we risk the
* cpu being missed by the priority loop in cpupri_find.
*/
if (likely(newpri != CPUPRI_INVALID)) {
struct cpupri_vec *vec = &cp->pri_to_cpu[newpri];
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, vec->mask);
sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock The cpupri vec->lock has been showing up as a top contention lately. This is because of the RT push/pull logic takes an agressive approach for migrating RT tasks. The cpupri logic is in place to improve the performance of the push/pull when dealing with large number CPU machines. The problem though is a vec->lock is required, where a vec is a global per RT priority structure. That is, if there are lots of RT tasks at the same priority, every time they are added or removed from the RT queue, this global vec->lock is taken. Now that more kernel threads are becoming RT (RCU boost and threaded interrupts) this is becoming much more of an issue. There are two variables that are being synced by the vec->lock. The cpupri bitmask, and the vec->counter. The cpupri bitmask is one bit per priority. If a RT priority vec has a process queued, then the vec->count is > 0 and the cpupri bitmask is set for that RT priority. If the cpupri bitmask gets out of sync with the vec->counter, we could end up pushing a low proirity RT task to a high priority queue. That RT task that could have run immediately could be queued on a run queue with a higher priority task indefinitely. The solution is not to use the cpupri bitmask and just look at the vec->count directly when doing a pull. The cpupri bitmask is just a fast way to scan the RT priorities when a pull is made. Instead of using the bitmask, and just examine all RT priorities, and look at the vec->counts, we could eliminate the vec->lock. The scan of RT tasks is to find a run queue that we can push an RT task to, and we do not push to a high priority queue, thus the scan only needs to go from 1 to RT task->prio, and not all 100 RT priorities. The push algorithm, which does the scan of RT priorities (and scan of the bitmask) only happens when we have an overloaded RT run queue (more than one RT task queued). The grabbing of the vec->lock happens every time any RT task is queued or dequeued on the run queue for that priority. The slowing down of the scan by not using a bitmask is negligible by the speed up of removing the vec->lock contention, and replacing it with an atomic counter and memory barrier. To prove this, I wrote a patch that times both the loop and the code that grabs the vec->locks. I passed the patches to various people (and companies) to test and show the results. I let everyone choose their own load to test, giving different loads on the system, for various different setups. Here's some of the results: (snipping to a few CPUs to not make this change log huge, but the results were consistent across the entire system). System 1 (24 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- [...] cpu 20: loop 3057 1.766 0.061 0.642 1963.170 vec 6782949 90.469 0.089 0.414 2811760.503 cpu 21: loop 2617 1.723 0.062 0.641 1679.074 vec 6782810 90.499 0.089 0.291 1978499.900 cpu 22: loop 2212 1.863 0.063 0.699 1547.160 vec 6767244 85.685 0.089 0.435 2949676.898 cpu 23: loop 2320 2.013 0.062 0.594 1380.265 vec 6781694 87.923 0.088 0.431 2928538.224 After patch: cpu 20: loop 2078 1.579 0.061 0.533 1108.006 vec 6164555 5.704 0.060 0.143 885185.809 cpu 21: loop 2268 1.712 0.065 0.575 1305.248 vec 6153376 5.558 0.060 0.187 1154960.469 cpu 22: loop 1542 1.639 0.095 0.533 823.249 vec 6156510 5.720 0.060 0.190 1172727.232 cpu 23: loop 1650 1.733 0.068 0.545 900.781 vec 6170784 5.533 0.060 0.167 1034287.953 All times are in microseconds. The 'loop' is the amount of time spent doing the loop across the priorities (before patch uses bitmask). the 'vec' is the amount of time in the code that requires grabbing the vec->lock. The second patch just does not have the vec lock, but encompasses the same code. Amazingly the loop code even went down on average. The vec code went from .5 down to .18, that's more than half the time spent! Note, more than one test was run, but they all had the same results. System 2 (64 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5410840 277.954 0.084 0.782 4232895.727 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4915648 188.399 0.084 0.570 2803220.301 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5356076 276.417 0.085 0.786 4214544.548 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4891837 170.531 0.085 0.799 3910948.833 After patch: cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5365118 5.080 0.021 0.063 340490.267 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4898590 1.757 0.019 0.071 347903.615 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5737130 3.067 0.021 0.119 687108.734 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4903228 1.822 0.021 0.071 348506.477 The test run during the measurement did not have any (very few, from other CPUs) RT tasks pushing. But this shows that it helped out tremendously with the contention, as the contention happens because the vec->lock is taken only on queuing at an RT priority, and different CPUs that queue tasks at the same priority will have contention. I tested on my own 4 CPU machine with the following results: Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2377 1.489 0.158 0.588 1398.395 vec 4484 770.146 2.301 4.396 19711.755 cpu 1: loop 2169 1.962 0.160 0.576 1250.110 vec 4425 152.769 2.297 4.030 17834.228 cpu 2: loop 2324 1.749 0.155 0.559 1299.799 vec 4368 779.632 2.325 4.665 20379.268 cpu 3: loop 2325 1.629 0.157 0.561 1306.113 vec 4650 408.782 2.394 4.348 20222.577 After patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2121 1.616 0.113 0.636 1349.189 vec 4303 1.151 0.225 0.421 1811.966 cpu 1: loop 2130 1.638 0.178 0.644 1372.927 vec 4627 1.379 0.235 0.428 1983.648 cpu 2: loop 2056 1.464 0.165 0.637 1310.141 vec 4471 1.311 0.217 0.433 1937.927 cpu 3: loop 2154 1.481 0.162 0.601 1295.083 vec 4236 1.253 0.230 0.425 1803.008 This was running my migrate.c code that can be found at: http://lwn.net/Articles/425763/ The migrate code does stress the RT tasks a bit. This shows that the loop did increase a little after the patch, but not by much. The vec code dropped dramatically. From 4.3us down to .42us. That's a 10x improvement! Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de> Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> Tested-by: Matthew Hank Sabins<msabins@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Reviewed-by: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312317372.18583.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03 03:36:12 +07:00
/*
* When adding a new vector, we update the mask first,
* do a write memory barrier, and then update the count, to
* make sure the vector is visible when count is set.
*/
smp_mb__before_atomic();
sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock The cpupri vec->lock has been showing up as a top contention lately. This is because of the RT push/pull logic takes an agressive approach for migrating RT tasks. The cpupri logic is in place to improve the performance of the push/pull when dealing with large number CPU machines. The problem though is a vec->lock is required, where a vec is a global per RT priority structure. That is, if there are lots of RT tasks at the same priority, every time they are added or removed from the RT queue, this global vec->lock is taken. Now that more kernel threads are becoming RT (RCU boost and threaded interrupts) this is becoming much more of an issue. There are two variables that are being synced by the vec->lock. The cpupri bitmask, and the vec->counter. The cpupri bitmask is one bit per priority. If a RT priority vec has a process queued, then the vec->count is > 0 and the cpupri bitmask is set for that RT priority. If the cpupri bitmask gets out of sync with the vec->counter, we could end up pushing a low proirity RT task to a high priority queue. That RT task that could have run immediately could be queued on a run queue with a higher priority task indefinitely. The solution is not to use the cpupri bitmask and just look at the vec->count directly when doing a pull. The cpupri bitmask is just a fast way to scan the RT priorities when a pull is made. Instead of using the bitmask, and just examine all RT priorities, and look at the vec->counts, we could eliminate the vec->lock. The scan of RT tasks is to find a run queue that we can push an RT task to, and we do not push to a high priority queue, thus the scan only needs to go from 1 to RT task->prio, and not all 100 RT priorities. The push algorithm, which does the scan of RT priorities (and scan of the bitmask) only happens when we have an overloaded RT run queue (more than one RT task queued). The grabbing of the vec->lock happens every time any RT task is queued or dequeued on the run queue for that priority. The slowing down of the scan by not using a bitmask is negligible by the speed up of removing the vec->lock contention, and replacing it with an atomic counter and memory barrier. To prove this, I wrote a patch that times both the loop and the code that grabs the vec->locks. I passed the patches to various people (and companies) to test and show the results. I let everyone choose their own load to test, giving different loads on the system, for various different setups. Here's some of the results: (snipping to a few CPUs to not make this change log huge, but the results were consistent across the entire system). System 1 (24 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- [...] cpu 20: loop 3057 1.766 0.061 0.642 1963.170 vec 6782949 90.469 0.089 0.414 2811760.503 cpu 21: loop 2617 1.723 0.062 0.641 1679.074 vec 6782810 90.499 0.089 0.291 1978499.900 cpu 22: loop 2212 1.863 0.063 0.699 1547.160 vec 6767244 85.685 0.089 0.435 2949676.898 cpu 23: loop 2320 2.013 0.062 0.594 1380.265 vec 6781694 87.923 0.088 0.431 2928538.224 After patch: cpu 20: loop 2078 1.579 0.061 0.533 1108.006 vec 6164555 5.704 0.060 0.143 885185.809 cpu 21: loop 2268 1.712 0.065 0.575 1305.248 vec 6153376 5.558 0.060 0.187 1154960.469 cpu 22: loop 1542 1.639 0.095 0.533 823.249 vec 6156510 5.720 0.060 0.190 1172727.232 cpu 23: loop 1650 1.733 0.068 0.545 900.781 vec 6170784 5.533 0.060 0.167 1034287.953 All times are in microseconds. The 'loop' is the amount of time spent doing the loop across the priorities (before patch uses bitmask). the 'vec' is the amount of time in the code that requires grabbing the vec->lock. The second patch just does not have the vec lock, but encompasses the same code. Amazingly the loop code even went down on average. The vec code went from .5 down to .18, that's more than half the time spent! Note, more than one test was run, but they all had the same results. System 2 (64 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5410840 277.954 0.084 0.782 4232895.727 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4915648 188.399 0.084 0.570 2803220.301 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5356076 276.417 0.085 0.786 4214544.548 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4891837 170.531 0.085 0.799 3910948.833 After patch: cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5365118 5.080 0.021 0.063 340490.267 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4898590 1.757 0.019 0.071 347903.615 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5737130 3.067 0.021 0.119 687108.734 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4903228 1.822 0.021 0.071 348506.477 The test run during the measurement did not have any (very few, from other CPUs) RT tasks pushing. But this shows that it helped out tremendously with the contention, as the contention happens because the vec->lock is taken only on queuing at an RT priority, and different CPUs that queue tasks at the same priority will have contention. I tested on my own 4 CPU machine with the following results: Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2377 1.489 0.158 0.588 1398.395 vec 4484 770.146 2.301 4.396 19711.755 cpu 1: loop 2169 1.962 0.160 0.576 1250.110 vec 4425 152.769 2.297 4.030 17834.228 cpu 2: loop 2324 1.749 0.155 0.559 1299.799 vec 4368 779.632 2.325 4.665 20379.268 cpu 3: loop 2325 1.629 0.157 0.561 1306.113 vec 4650 408.782 2.394 4.348 20222.577 After patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2121 1.616 0.113 0.636 1349.189 vec 4303 1.151 0.225 0.421 1811.966 cpu 1: loop 2130 1.638 0.178 0.644 1372.927 vec 4627 1.379 0.235 0.428 1983.648 cpu 2: loop 2056 1.464 0.165 0.637 1310.141 vec 4471 1.311 0.217 0.433 1937.927 cpu 3: loop 2154 1.481 0.162 0.601 1295.083 vec 4236 1.253 0.230 0.425 1803.008 This was running my migrate.c code that can be found at: http://lwn.net/Articles/425763/ The migrate code does stress the RT tasks a bit. This shows that the loop did increase a little after the patch, but not by much. The vec code dropped dramatically. From 4.3us down to .42us. That's a 10x improvement! Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de> Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> Tested-by: Matthew Hank Sabins<msabins@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Reviewed-by: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312317372.18583.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03 03:36:12 +07:00
atomic_inc(&(vec)->count);
sched/cpupri: Fix memory barriers for vec updates to always be in order [ This patch actually compiles. Thanks to Mike Galbraith for pointing that out. I compiled and booted this patch with no issues. ] Re-examining the cpupri patch, I see there's a possible race because the update of the two priorities vec->counts are not protected by a memory barrier. When a RT runqueue is overloaded and wants to push an RT task to another runqueue, it scans the RT priority vectors in a loop from lowest priority to highest. When we queue or dequeue an RT task that changes a runqueue's highest priority task, we update the vectors to show that a runqueue is rated at a different priority. To do this, we first set the new priority mask, and increment the vec->count, and then set the old priority mask by decrementing the vec->count. If we are lowering the runqueue's RT priority rating, it will trigger a RT pull, and we do not care if we miss pushing to this runqueue or not. But if we raise the priority, but the priority is still lower than an RT task that is looking to be pushed, we must make sure that this runqueue is still seen by the push algorithm (the loop). Because the loop reads from lowest to highest, and the new priority is set before the old one is cleared, we will either see the new or old priority set and the vector will be checked. But! Since there's no memory barrier between the updates of the two, the old count may be decremented first before the new count is incremented. This means the loop may see the old count of zero and skip it, and also the new count of zero before it was updated. A possible runqueue that the RT task could move to could be missed. A conditional memory barrier is placed between the vec->count updates and is only called when both updates are done. The smp_wmb() has also been changed to smp_mb__before_atomic_inc/dec(), as they are not needed by archs that already synchronize atomic_inc/dec(). The smp_rmb() has been moved to be called at every iteration of the loop so that the race between seeing the two updates is visible by each iteration of the loop, as an arch is free to optimize the reading of memory of the counters in the loop. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312547269.18583.194.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-05 19:27:49 +07:00
do_mb = 1;
}
if (likely(oldpri != CPUPRI_INVALID)) {
struct cpupri_vec *vec = &cp->pri_to_cpu[oldpri];
sched/cpupri: Fix memory barriers for vec updates to always be in order [ This patch actually compiles. Thanks to Mike Galbraith for pointing that out. I compiled and booted this patch with no issues. ] Re-examining the cpupri patch, I see there's a possible race because the update of the two priorities vec->counts are not protected by a memory barrier. When a RT runqueue is overloaded and wants to push an RT task to another runqueue, it scans the RT priority vectors in a loop from lowest priority to highest. When we queue or dequeue an RT task that changes a runqueue's highest priority task, we update the vectors to show that a runqueue is rated at a different priority. To do this, we first set the new priority mask, and increment the vec->count, and then set the old priority mask by decrementing the vec->count. If we are lowering the runqueue's RT priority rating, it will trigger a RT pull, and we do not care if we miss pushing to this runqueue or not. But if we raise the priority, but the priority is still lower than an RT task that is looking to be pushed, we must make sure that this runqueue is still seen by the push algorithm (the loop). Because the loop reads from lowest to highest, and the new priority is set before the old one is cleared, we will either see the new or old priority set and the vector will be checked. But! Since there's no memory barrier between the updates of the two, the old count may be decremented first before the new count is incremented. This means the loop may see the old count of zero and skip it, and also the new count of zero before it was updated. A possible runqueue that the RT task could move to could be missed. A conditional memory barrier is placed between the vec->count updates and is only called when both updates are done. The smp_wmb() has also been changed to smp_mb__before_atomic_inc/dec(), as they are not needed by archs that already synchronize atomic_inc/dec(). The smp_rmb() has been moved to be called at every iteration of the loop so that the race between seeing the two updates is visible by each iteration of the loop, as an arch is free to optimize the reading of memory of the counters in the loop. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312547269.18583.194.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-05 19:27:49 +07:00
/*
* Because the order of modification of the vec->count
* is important, we must make sure that the update
* of the new prio is seen before we decrement the
* old prio. This makes sure that the loop sees
* one or the other when we raise the priority of
* the run queue. We don't care about when we lower the
* priority, as that will trigger an rt pull anyway.
*
* We only need to do a memory barrier if we updated
* the new priority vec.
*/
if (do_mb)
smp_mb__after_atomic();
sched/cpupri: Fix memory barriers for vec updates to always be in order [ This patch actually compiles. Thanks to Mike Galbraith for pointing that out. I compiled and booted this patch with no issues. ] Re-examining the cpupri patch, I see there's a possible race because the update of the two priorities vec->counts are not protected by a memory barrier. When a RT runqueue is overloaded and wants to push an RT task to another runqueue, it scans the RT priority vectors in a loop from lowest priority to highest. When we queue or dequeue an RT task that changes a runqueue's highest priority task, we update the vectors to show that a runqueue is rated at a different priority. To do this, we first set the new priority mask, and increment the vec->count, and then set the old priority mask by decrementing the vec->count. If we are lowering the runqueue's RT priority rating, it will trigger a RT pull, and we do not care if we miss pushing to this runqueue or not. But if we raise the priority, but the priority is still lower than an RT task that is looking to be pushed, we must make sure that this runqueue is still seen by the push algorithm (the loop). Because the loop reads from lowest to highest, and the new priority is set before the old one is cleared, we will either see the new or old priority set and the vector will be checked. But! Since there's no memory barrier between the updates of the two, the old count may be decremented first before the new count is incremented. This means the loop may see the old count of zero and skip it, and also the new count of zero before it was updated. A possible runqueue that the RT task could move to could be missed. A conditional memory barrier is placed between the vec->count updates and is only called when both updates are done. The smp_wmb() has also been changed to smp_mb__before_atomic_inc/dec(), as they are not needed by archs that already synchronize atomic_inc/dec(). The smp_rmb() has been moved to be called at every iteration of the loop so that the race between seeing the two updates is visible by each iteration of the loop, as an arch is free to optimize the reading of memory of the counters in the loop. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312547269.18583.194.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-05 19:27:49 +07:00
sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock The cpupri vec->lock has been showing up as a top contention lately. This is because of the RT push/pull logic takes an agressive approach for migrating RT tasks. The cpupri logic is in place to improve the performance of the push/pull when dealing with large number CPU machines. The problem though is a vec->lock is required, where a vec is a global per RT priority structure. That is, if there are lots of RT tasks at the same priority, every time they are added or removed from the RT queue, this global vec->lock is taken. Now that more kernel threads are becoming RT (RCU boost and threaded interrupts) this is becoming much more of an issue. There are two variables that are being synced by the vec->lock. The cpupri bitmask, and the vec->counter. The cpupri bitmask is one bit per priority. If a RT priority vec has a process queued, then the vec->count is > 0 and the cpupri bitmask is set for that RT priority. If the cpupri bitmask gets out of sync with the vec->counter, we could end up pushing a low proirity RT task to a high priority queue. That RT task that could have run immediately could be queued on a run queue with a higher priority task indefinitely. The solution is not to use the cpupri bitmask and just look at the vec->count directly when doing a pull. The cpupri bitmask is just a fast way to scan the RT priorities when a pull is made. Instead of using the bitmask, and just examine all RT priorities, and look at the vec->counts, we could eliminate the vec->lock. The scan of RT tasks is to find a run queue that we can push an RT task to, and we do not push to a high priority queue, thus the scan only needs to go from 1 to RT task->prio, and not all 100 RT priorities. The push algorithm, which does the scan of RT priorities (and scan of the bitmask) only happens when we have an overloaded RT run queue (more than one RT task queued). The grabbing of the vec->lock happens every time any RT task is queued or dequeued on the run queue for that priority. The slowing down of the scan by not using a bitmask is negligible by the speed up of removing the vec->lock contention, and replacing it with an atomic counter and memory barrier. To prove this, I wrote a patch that times both the loop and the code that grabs the vec->locks. I passed the patches to various people (and companies) to test and show the results. I let everyone choose their own load to test, giving different loads on the system, for various different setups. Here's some of the results: (snipping to a few CPUs to not make this change log huge, but the results were consistent across the entire system). System 1 (24 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- [...] cpu 20: loop 3057 1.766 0.061 0.642 1963.170 vec 6782949 90.469 0.089 0.414 2811760.503 cpu 21: loop 2617 1.723 0.062 0.641 1679.074 vec 6782810 90.499 0.089 0.291 1978499.900 cpu 22: loop 2212 1.863 0.063 0.699 1547.160 vec 6767244 85.685 0.089 0.435 2949676.898 cpu 23: loop 2320 2.013 0.062 0.594 1380.265 vec 6781694 87.923 0.088 0.431 2928538.224 After patch: cpu 20: loop 2078 1.579 0.061 0.533 1108.006 vec 6164555 5.704 0.060 0.143 885185.809 cpu 21: loop 2268 1.712 0.065 0.575 1305.248 vec 6153376 5.558 0.060 0.187 1154960.469 cpu 22: loop 1542 1.639 0.095 0.533 823.249 vec 6156510 5.720 0.060 0.190 1172727.232 cpu 23: loop 1650 1.733 0.068 0.545 900.781 vec 6170784 5.533 0.060 0.167 1034287.953 All times are in microseconds. The 'loop' is the amount of time spent doing the loop across the priorities (before patch uses bitmask). the 'vec' is the amount of time in the code that requires grabbing the vec->lock. The second patch just does not have the vec lock, but encompasses the same code. Amazingly the loop code even went down on average. The vec code went from .5 down to .18, that's more than half the time spent! Note, more than one test was run, but they all had the same results. System 2 (64 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5410840 277.954 0.084 0.782 4232895.727 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4915648 188.399 0.084 0.570 2803220.301 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5356076 276.417 0.085 0.786 4214544.548 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4891837 170.531 0.085 0.799 3910948.833 After patch: cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5365118 5.080 0.021 0.063 340490.267 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4898590 1.757 0.019 0.071 347903.615 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5737130 3.067 0.021 0.119 687108.734 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4903228 1.822 0.021 0.071 348506.477 The test run during the measurement did not have any (very few, from other CPUs) RT tasks pushing. But this shows that it helped out tremendously with the contention, as the contention happens because the vec->lock is taken only on queuing at an RT priority, and different CPUs that queue tasks at the same priority will have contention. I tested on my own 4 CPU machine with the following results: Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2377 1.489 0.158 0.588 1398.395 vec 4484 770.146 2.301 4.396 19711.755 cpu 1: loop 2169 1.962 0.160 0.576 1250.110 vec 4425 152.769 2.297 4.030 17834.228 cpu 2: loop 2324 1.749 0.155 0.559 1299.799 vec 4368 779.632 2.325 4.665 20379.268 cpu 3: loop 2325 1.629 0.157 0.561 1306.113 vec 4650 408.782 2.394 4.348 20222.577 After patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2121 1.616 0.113 0.636 1349.189 vec 4303 1.151 0.225 0.421 1811.966 cpu 1: loop 2130 1.638 0.178 0.644 1372.927 vec 4627 1.379 0.235 0.428 1983.648 cpu 2: loop 2056 1.464 0.165 0.637 1310.141 vec 4471 1.311 0.217 0.433 1937.927 cpu 3: loop 2154 1.481 0.162 0.601 1295.083 vec 4236 1.253 0.230 0.425 1803.008 This was running my migrate.c code that can be found at: http://lwn.net/Articles/425763/ The migrate code does stress the RT tasks a bit. This shows that the loop did increase a little after the patch, but not by much. The vec code dropped dramatically. From 4.3us down to .42us. That's a 10x improvement! Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de> Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> Tested-by: Matthew Hank Sabins<msabins@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Reviewed-by: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312317372.18583.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03 03:36:12 +07:00
/*
* When removing from the vector, we decrement the counter first
* do a memory barrier and then clear the mask.
*/
atomic_dec(&(vec)->count);
smp_mb__after_atomic();
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, vec->mask);
}
*currpri = newpri;
}
/**
* cpupri_init - initialize the cpupri structure
* @cp: The cpupri context
*
* Return: -ENOMEM on memory allocation failure.
*/
int cpupri_init(struct cpupri *cp)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES; i++) {
struct cpupri_vec *vec = &cp->pri_to_cpu[i];
sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock sched/cpupri: Remove the vec->lock The cpupri vec->lock has been showing up as a top contention lately. This is because of the RT push/pull logic takes an agressive approach for migrating RT tasks. The cpupri logic is in place to improve the performance of the push/pull when dealing with large number CPU machines. The problem though is a vec->lock is required, where a vec is a global per RT priority structure. That is, if there are lots of RT tasks at the same priority, every time they are added or removed from the RT queue, this global vec->lock is taken. Now that more kernel threads are becoming RT (RCU boost and threaded interrupts) this is becoming much more of an issue. There are two variables that are being synced by the vec->lock. The cpupri bitmask, and the vec->counter. The cpupri bitmask is one bit per priority. If a RT priority vec has a process queued, then the vec->count is > 0 and the cpupri bitmask is set for that RT priority. If the cpupri bitmask gets out of sync with the vec->counter, we could end up pushing a low proirity RT task to a high priority queue. That RT task that could have run immediately could be queued on a run queue with a higher priority task indefinitely. The solution is not to use the cpupri bitmask and just look at the vec->count directly when doing a pull. The cpupri bitmask is just a fast way to scan the RT priorities when a pull is made. Instead of using the bitmask, and just examine all RT priorities, and look at the vec->counts, we could eliminate the vec->lock. The scan of RT tasks is to find a run queue that we can push an RT task to, and we do not push to a high priority queue, thus the scan only needs to go from 1 to RT task->prio, and not all 100 RT priorities. The push algorithm, which does the scan of RT priorities (and scan of the bitmask) only happens when we have an overloaded RT run queue (more than one RT task queued). The grabbing of the vec->lock happens every time any RT task is queued or dequeued on the run queue for that priority. The slowing down of the scan by not using a bitmask is negligible by the speed up of removing the vec->lock contention, and replacing it with an atomic counter and memory barrier. To prove this, I wrote a patch that times both the loop and the code that grabs the vec->locks. I passed the patches to various people (and companies) to test and show the results. I let everyone choose their own load to test, giving different loads on the system, for various different setups. Here's some of the results: (snipping to a few CPUs to not make this change log huge, but the results were consistent across the entire system). System 1 (24 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- [...] cpu 20: loop 3057 1.766 0.061 0.642 1963.170 vec 6782949 90.469 0.089 0.414 2811760.503 cpu 21: loop 2617 1.723 0.062 0.641 1679.074 vec 6782810 90.499 0.089 0.291 1978499.900 cpu 22: loop 2212 1.863 0.063 0.699 1547.160 vec 6767244 85.685 0.089 0.435 2949676.898 cpu 23: loop 2320 2.013 0.062 0.594 1380.265 vec 6781694 87.923 0.088 0.431 2928538.224 After patch: cpu 20: loop 2078 1.579 0.061 0.533 1108.006 vec 6164555 5.704 0.060 0.143 885185.809 cpu 21: loop 2268 1.712 0.065 0.575 1305.248 vec 6153376 5.558 0.060 0.187 1154960.469 cpu 22: loop 1542 1.639 0.095 0.533 823.249 vec 6156510 5.720 0.060 0.190 1172727.232 cpu 23: loop 1650 1.733 0.068 0.545 900.781 vec 6170784 5.533 0.060 0.167 1034287.953 All times are in microseconds. The 'loop' is the amount of time spent doing the loop across the priorities (before patch uses bitmask). the 'vec' is the amount of time in the code that requires grabbing the vec->lock. The second patch just does not have the vec lock, but encompasses the same code. Amazingly the loop code even went down on average. The vec code went from .5 down to .18, that's more than half the time spent! Note, more than one test was run, but they all had the same results. System 2 (64 CPUs) Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5410840 277.954 0.084 0.782 4232895.727 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4915648 188.399 0.084 0.570 2803220.301 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5356076 276.417 0.085 0.786 4214544.548 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4891837 170.531 0.085 0.799 3910948.833 After patch: cpu 60: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5365118 5.080 0.021 0.063 340490.267 cpu 61: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4898590 1.757 0.019 0.071 347903.615 cpu 62: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 5737130 3.067 0.021 0.119 687108.734 cpu 63: loop 0 0 0 0 0 vec 4903228 1.822 0.021 0.071 348506.477 The test run during the measurement did not have any (very few, from other CPUs) RT tasks pushing. But this shows that it helped out tremendously with the contention, as the contention happens because the vec->lock is taken only on queuing at an RT priority, and different CPUs that queue tasks at the same priority will have contention. I tested on my own 4 CPU machine with the following results: Before patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2377 1.489 0.158 0.588 1398.395 vec 4484 770.146 2.301 4.396 19711.755 cpu 1: loop 2169 1.962 0.160 0.576 1250.110 vec 4425 152.769 2.297 4.030 17834.228 cpu 2: loop 2324 1.749 0.155 0.559 1299.799 vec 4368 779.632 2.325 4.665 20379.268 cpu 3: loop 2325 1.629 0.157 0.561 1306.113 vec 4650 408.782 2.394 4.348 20222.577 After patch: CPU: Name Count Max Min Average Total ---- ---- ----- --- --- ------- ----- cpu 0: loop 2121 1.616 0.113 0.636 1349.189 vec 4303 1.151 0.225 0.421 1811.966 cpu 1: loop 2130 1.638 0.178 0.644 1372.927 vec 4627 1.379 0.235 0.428 1983.648 cpu 2: loop 2056 1.464 0.165 0.637 1310.141 vec 4471 1.311 0.217 0.433 1937.927 cpu 3: loop 2154 1.481 0.162 0.601 1295.083 vec 4236 1.253 0.230 0.425 1803.008 This was running my migrate.c code that can be found at: http://lwn.net/Articles/425763/ The migrate code does stress the RT tasks a bit. This shows that the loop did increase a little after the patch, but not by much. The vec code dropped dramatically. From 4.3us down to .42us. That's a 10x improvement! Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de> Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Gonçalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> Tested-by: Matthew Hank Sabins<msabins@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Reviewed-by: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1312317372.18583.101.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03 03:36:12 +07:00
atomic_set(&vec->count, 0);
if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&vec->mask, GFP_KERNEL))
goto cleanup;
}
cp->cpu_to_pri = kcalloc(nr_cpu_ids, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!cp->cpu_to_pri)
goto cleanup;
for_each_possible_cpu(i)
cp->cpu_to_pri[i] = CPUPRI_INVALID;
return 0;
cleanup:
for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
free_cpumask_var(cp->pri_to_cpu[i].mask);
return -ENOMEM;
}
/**
* cpupri_cleanup - clean up the cpupri structure
* @cp: The cpupri context
*/
void cpupri_cleanup(struct cpupri *cp)
{
int i;
kfree(cp->cpu_to_pri);
for (i = 0; i < CPUPRI_NR_PRIORITIES; i++)
free_cpumask_var(cp->pri_to_cpu[i].mask);
}