[ Upstream commit e932c4ab38f072ce5894b2851fea8bc5754bb8e5 ]
Scheduler raises a SCHED_SOFTIRQ to trigger a load balancing event on
from the IPI handler on the idle CPU. If the SMP function is invoked
from an idle CPU via flush_smp_call_function_queue() then the HARD-IRQ
flag is not set and raise_softirq_irqoff() needlessly wakes ksoftirqd
because soft interrupts are handled before ksoftirqd get on the CPU.
Adding a trace_printk() in nohz_csd_func() at the spot of raising
SCHED_SOFTIRQ and enabling trace events for sched_switch, sched_wakeup,
and softirq_entry (for SCHED_SOFTIRQ vector alone) helps observing the
current behavior:
<idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ from nohz_csd_func
<idle>-0 [000] dN.4.: sched_wakeup: comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=16 prio=120 target_cpu=000
<idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
<idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_exit: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
<idle>-0 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=swapper/0 prev_pid=0 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=ksoftirqd/0 next_pid=16 next_prio=120
ksoftirqd/0-16 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=ksoftirqd/0 prev_pid=16 prev_prio=120 prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/0 next_pid=0 next_prio=120
...
Use __raise_softirq_irqoff() to raise the softirq. The SMP function call
is always invoked on the requested CPU in an interrupt handler. It is
guaranteed that soft interrupts are handled at the end.
Following are the observations with the changes when enabling the same
set of events:
<idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ for nohz_idle_balance
<idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: softirq_raise: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
<idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
No unnecessary ksoftirqd wakeups are seen from idle task's context to
service the softirq.
Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fcf823f-195e-6c9a-eac3-25f870cb35ac@inria.fr/ [1]
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241119054432.6405-5-kprateek.nayak@amd.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit c6f886546cb8a38617cdbe755fe50d3acd2463e4 ]
Instead of waking up a random and already idle CPU, we can take advantage
of this_cpu being about to enter idle to run the ILB and update the
blocked load.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210224133007.28644-7-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Stable-dep-of: ff47a0acfcce ("sched/fair: Check idle_cpu() before need_resched() to detect ilb CPU turning busy")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit ea9cffc0a154124821531991d5afdd7e8b20d7aa ]
The need_resched() check currently in nohz_csd_func() can be tracked
to have been added in scheduler_ipi() back in 2011 via commit
ca38062e57e9 ("sched: Use resched IPI to kick off the nohz idle balance")
Since then, it has travelled quite a bit but it seems like an idle_cpu()
check currently is sufficient to detect the need to bail out from an
idle load balancing. To justify this removal, consider all the following
case where an idle load balancing could race with a task wakeup:
o Since commit f3dd3f674555b ("sched: Remove the limitation of WF_ON_CPU
on wakelist if wakee cpu is idle") a target perceived to be idle
(target_rq->nr_running == 0) will return true for
ttwu_queue_cond(target) which will offload the task wakeup to the idle
target via an IPI.
In all such cases target_rq->ttwu_pending will be set to 1 before
queuing the wake function.
If an idle load balance races here, following scenarios are possible:
- The CPU is not in TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG mode in which case an actual
IPI is sent to the CPU to wake it out of idle. If the
nohz_csd_func() queues before sched_ttwu_pending(), the idle load
balance will bail out since idle_cpu(target) returns 0 since
target_rq->ttwu_pending is 1. If the nohz_csd_func() is queued after
sched_ttwu_pending() it should see rq->nr_running to be non-zero and
bail out of idle load balancing.
- The CPU is in TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG mode and instead of an actual IPI,
the sender will simply set TIF_NEED_RESCHED for the target to put it
out of idle and flush_smp_call_function_queue() in do_idle() will
execute the call function. Depending on the ordering of the queuing
of nohz_csd_func() and sched_ttwu_pending(), the idle_cpu() check in
nohz_csd_func() should either see target_rq->ttwu_pending = 1 or
target_rq->nr_running to be non-zero if there is a genuine task
wakeup racing with the idle load balance kick.
o The waker CPU perceives the target CPU to be busy
(targer_rq->nr_running != 0) but the CPU is in fact going idle and due
to a series of unfortunate events, the system reaches a case where the
waker CPU decides to perform the wakeup by itself in ttwu_queue() on
the target CPU but target is concurrently selected for idle load
balance (XXX: Can this happen? I'm not sure, but we'll consider the
mother of all coincidences to estimate the worst case scenario).
ttwu_do_activate() calls enqueue_task() which would increment
"rq->nr_running" post which it calls wakeup_preempt() which is
responsible for setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED (via a resched IPI or by
setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED on a TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG idle CPU) The key
thing to note in this case is that rq->nr_running is already non-zero
in case of a wakeup before TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set which would
lead to idle_cpu() check returning false.
In all cases, it seems that need_resched() check is unnecessary when
checking for idle_cpu() first since an impending wakeup racing with idle
load balancer will either set the "rq->ttwu_pending" or indicate a newly
woken task via "rq->nr_running".
Chasing the reason why this check might have existed in the first place,
I came across Peter's suggestion on the fist iteration of Suresh's
patch from 2011 [1] where the condition to raise the SCHED_SOFTIRQ was:
sched_ttwu_do_pending(list);
if (unlikely((rq->idle == current) &&
rq->nohz_balance_kick &&
!need_resched()))
raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
Since the condition to raise the SCHED_SOFIRQ was preceded by
sched_ttwu_do_pending() (which is equivalent of sched_ttwu_pending()) in
the current upstream kernel, the need_resched() check was necessary to
catch a newly queued task. Peter suggested modifying it to:
if (idle_cpu() && rq->nohz_balance_kick && !need_resched())
raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
where idle_cpu() seems to have replaced "rq->idle == current" check.
Even back then, the idle_cpu() check would have been sufficient to catch
a new task being enqueued. Since commit b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize
send_call_function_single_ipi()") overloads the interpretation of
TIF_NEED_RESCHED for TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG idling, remove the
need_resched() check in nohz_csd_func() to raise SCHED_SOFTIRQ based
on Peter's suggestion.
Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241119054432.6405-3-kprateek.nayak@amd.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit d329605287020c3d1c3b0dadc63d8208e7251382 upstream.
When a task's weight is being changed, set_load_weight() is called with
@update_load set. As weight changes aren't trivial for the fair class,
set_load_weight() calls fair.c::reweight_task() for fair class tasks.
However, set_load_weight() first tests task_has_idle_policy() on entry and
skips calling reweight_task() for SCHED_IDLE tasks. This is buggy as
SCHED_IDLE tasks are just fair tasks with a very low weight and they would
incorrectly skip load, vlag and position updates.
Fix it by updating reweight_task() to take struct load_weight as idle weight
can't be expressed with prio and making set_load_weight() call
reweight_task() for SCHED_IDLE tasks too when @update_load is set.
Fixes: 9059393e4ec1 ("sched/fair: Use reweight_entity() for set_user_nice()")
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.15+
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240624102331.GI31592@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Although SCHED_FIFO is a real-time scheduling policy, it can have bad
results on system latency, since each SCHED_FIFO task will run to
completion before yielding to another task. This can result in visible
micro-stalls when a SCHED_FIFO task hogs the CPU for too long. On a
system where latency is favored over throughput, using SCHED_RR is a
better choice than SCHED_FIFO.
Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
Signed-off-by: Oktapra Amtono <oktapra.amtono@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: CloudedQuartz <ravenklawasd@gmail.com>
Android isn't a real-time userspace and has lots of processes, which makes
the normal sched_nr_migrate value of 32 more appealing. In addition,
there's no observed latency reduction from using a sched_nr_migrate value
of 8, probably because the shallowest idle state on mobile CPUs takes
longer to enter/exit than it takes for the scheduler to do a load balance
run, so our tail end latency is limited by cpuidle anyway.
Unity-based games (such as Wild Rift) like to shoot themselves in the foot
by setting a nonsense CPU affinity, restricting the game to a narrow set of
CPU cores that it thinks are the "big" cores in a heterogeneous CPU. It
assumes that CPUs only have two performance domains (clusters), and
therefore royally mucks up games' CPU affinities on CPUs which have more
than two performance domains.
Check if a setaffinity target task is part of a Unity-based game and
silently ignore the setaffinity request so that it can't sabotage itself.
Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
