lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] timers: Don't wake ktimersoftd on every tick
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Haris Okanovic wrote:
> We recently upgraded from 4.1 to 4.6 and noticed a minor latency
> regression caused by an additional thread wakeup (ktimersoftd) in
> interrupt context on every tick. The wakeups are from
> run_local_timers() raising TIMER_SOFTIRQ. Both TIMER and SCHED softirq
> coalesced into one ksoftirqd wakeup prior to Sebastian's change to split
> timers into their own thread.
>
> There's already logic in run_local_timers() to avoid some unnecessary
> wakeups of ksoftirqd, but it doesn't seems to catch them all. In
> particular, I've seen many unnecessary wakeups when jiffies increments
> prior to run_local_timers().
>
> Change the way timers are collected per Julia and Thomas'
> recommendation: Expired timers are now collected in interrupt context
> and fired in ktimersoftd to avoid double-walk of `pending_map`.
>
> Collect expired timers in interrupt context to avoid overhead of waking
> ktimersoftd on every tick. ktimersoftd now wakes only when one or more
> timers are ready, which yields a minor reduction in small latency spikes.
>
> This is implemented by storing lists of expired timers in timer_base,
> updated on each tick. Any addition to the lists wakes ktimersoftd
> (softirq) to process those timers.

One thing which would be really good to have in the changelog is the
overhead of that collection operation in hard irq context.

> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 5730d42bfd67..e5b537f2308c 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -209,9 +209,12 @@ struct timer_base {
> bool is_idle;
> DECLARE_BITMAP(pending_map, WHEEL_SIZE);
> struct hlist_head vectors[WHEEL_SIZE];
> + struct hlist_head expired_lists[LVL_DEPTH];
> + int expired_count;

You need to look at the cache layout of that whole thing. My gut feeling
tells me that that count is at the wrong place.

> } ____cacheline_aligned;
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct timer_base, timer_bases[NR_BASES]);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, block_softirqs);

Why are you putting that into a seperate per cpu variable instead of adding
a bool to the base struct as I suggested in my example:

base->softirq_activated = false;

Having that separate makes no sense conceptually and cache wise it can
force to touch yet another cacheline depending on the placement by
compiler/linker. Looking at your implementation it does in 100% of the
cases.

You can use the first base for that, as that is going to be touched anyway
and is cache hot in any case.

> -static void expire_timers(struct timer_base *base, struct hlist_head *head)
> +static inline void __expire_timers(struct timer_base *base,

What's the purpose of this change? If it makes sense to inline it, then the
compiler will do so.

> + struct hlist_head *head)
> {
> while (!hlist_empty(head)) {
> struct timer_list *timer;
> @@ -1344,21 +1348,45 @@ static void expire_timers(struct timer_base *base, struct hlist_head *head)
> }
> }
>
> -static int __collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base,
> - struct hlist_head *heads)
> +static void expire_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> {
> - unsigned long clk = base->clk;
> + struct hlist_head *head;
> + int count = READ_ONCE(base->expired_count);

Please keep the reverse fir tree ordering based on length for the variables
as we have it throughout that code.

> +
> + while (count--) {

So this changed vs. the previous implementation and in this case the
READ_ONCE() is pointless as the compiler CANNOT reevaluate base->foo inside
that loop.

> + head = base->expired_lists + count;
> + __expire_timers(base, head);
> + }
> +
> + /* Zero base->expired_count after processing all base->expired_lists
> + * to signal it's ready to get re-populated. Otherwise, we race with
> + * tick_find_expired() when base->lock is temporarily dropped in
> + * __expire_timers() */

Please stick to the two sane comment styles:

/* Single line comment */

/*
* Multi line comment
* Multi line comment
* Multi line comment
*/

For further enlightment: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146799838429328&w=2

> + base->expired_count = 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> +{
> + unsigned long clk;
> struct hlist_head *vec;
> - int i, levels = 0;
> + int i;
> unsigned int idx;

See above

> + /*
> + * expire_timers() must be called at least once before we can
> + * collect more timers
> + */
> + if (base->expired_count)
> + goto end;
> +
> + clk = base->clk;
> for (i = 0; i < LVL_DEPTH; i++) {
> idx = (clk & LVL_MASK) + i * LVL_SIZE;
>
> if (__test_and_clear_bit(idx, base->pending_map)) {
> vec = base->vectors + idx;
> - hlist_move_list(vec, heads++);
> - levels++;
> + hlist_move_list(vec,
> + &base->expired_lists[base->expired_count++]);

Eew. What's wrong with local variables ?

struct hist_head *list = &base->expired_vectors;

at the top of this function and then do

hlist_move_list(vec, list++);
base->expired_levels++;

or have a local count and use it as index to list[]. The code generation
should be roughly the same, but I expect it to be better with the seperate
increments.

> }
> /* Is it time to look at the next level? */
> if (clk & LVL_CLK_MASK)
> @@ -1366,7 +1394,8 @@ static int __collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base,
> /* Shift clock for the next level granularity */
> clk >>= LVL_CLK_SHIFT;
> }
> - return levels;
> +
> + end: return base->expired_count;

More Eeew! Can you please look how labels are placed in the
kernel. Certainly not that way.

Aside of that the goto is silly. You can just return expired_count up at
that conditional, or move the conditional to the caller.

Actually I do not understand that conditional at the top at all. The call
site breaks out of the loop when the return value is > 0. So what's that
for? Paranoia? If that's the case then you want a WARN_ONCE there, because
that should never happen. Otherwise it's just pointless. If actually
something relies on that, then it's disgusting.

> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> @@ -1559,8 +1588,7 @@ void timer_clear_idle(void)
> base->is_idle = false;
> }
>
> -static int collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base,
> - struct hlist_head *heads)
> +static int collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> {
> /*
> * NOHZ optimization. After a long idle sleep we need to forward the
> @@ -1581,16 +1609,41 @@ static int collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base,
> }
> base->clk = next;
> }
> - return __collect_expired_timers(base, heads);
> + return __collect_expired_timers(base);
> }
> #else
> -static inline int collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base,
> - struct hlist_head *heads)
> +static inline int collect_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> {
> - return __collect_expired_timers(base, heads);
> + return __collect_expired_timers(base);
> }
> #endif
>
> +/* Increments timer_base to current jiffies or until first expired
> + * timer is found. Return number of expired timers. */

Sigh.

> +static int find_expired_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> +{
> + const unsigned long int end_clk = jiffies;

const ? unsigned long int ?

> + int expired_count;
> +
> + while ( !(expired_count = collect_expired_timers(base)) &&
> + time_after_eq(end_clk, base->clk) ) {

These extra white spaces after ( and before ) are pointless and not kernel
coding style.

What's worse is the order of your conditionals. Just look at the original
code.

> + base->clk++;
> + }

Aside of that this loop is fricking hard to read.

int levels = 0;

while (!levels && time_after_eq(jiffies, base->clk)) {
levels = collect_expired_timers(base, heads);
base->clk++;
}

return levels;

Is all what you need here, right? That's what the original loop does as
well.

> +
> + return expired_count;
> +}
> +
> +/* Called from CPU tick routine to collect expired timers up to current
> + * jiffies. Return number of expired timers. */

Wrong. It returns the number of levels which have expired timers. The
number of actual timers per level is unknown as we move the complete list.

> +static int tick_find_expired(struct timer_base *base)
> +{
> + int count;

Missing new line between declaration and code. checkpatch.pl is wrong on a
lot of things, but it would have told you.

> + raw_spin_lock(&base->lock);
> + count = find_expired_timers(base);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
> + return count;
Please be consistent with the names. We use 'levels' throughout all the other
functions. Random variable names are just confusing.

> +}
> +
> /*
> * Called from the timer interrupt handler to charge one tick to the current
> * process. user_tick is 1 if the tick is user time, 0 for system.
> @@ -1618,22 +1671,11 @@ void update_process_times(int user_tick)
> */
> static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> {
> - struct hlist_head heads[LVL_DEPTH];
> - int levels;
> -
> - if (!time_after_eq(jiffies, base->clk))
> - return;
> -
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
>
> - while (time_after_eq(jiffies, base->clk)) {
> + while (find_expired_timers(base))
> + expire_timers(base);

Now I understand that extra conditional above. That's crap, really. Two
ways to solve that:

do {
expire_timers(base);
} while (find_expired_timers(base));
which requires a check for base->expired_levels inside of
expire_timers().

or

if (base->expired_levels)
expire_timers(base);
while (find_expired_timers(base))
expire_timers(base);
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
> wakeup_timer_waiters(base);

Errm. Please submit patches against mainline. This is RT only. On mainline
the overhead of raising the softirq is not that big, but the exercise is
the same.

> @@ -1644,12 +1686,16 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> static __latent_entropy void run_timer_softirq(struct softirq_action *h)
> {
> struct timer_base *base = this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_STD]);
> + int* block_softirq = this_cpu_ptr(&block_softirqs);

Sigh. A pointer is declared with:

int *p;

and not

int* p;

> irq_work_tick_soft();
>
> __run_timers(base);
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) && base->nohz_active)
> __run_timers(this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_DEF]));
> +
> + /* Allow new TIMER_SOFTIRQs to get scheduled by run_local_timers() */
> + WRITE_ONCE(*block_softirq, 0);

You are in interrupt enabled code here. So you actually might miss a wakeup
and delay it to the next tick. If that's your intention then please
document it proper. If not, you need to disable interrupts around the write
and recheck stuff.

Also the WRITE_ONCE() is pointless. The compiler cannot reorder the
write. And it does not protect you from racing with the hard interrupt. So
for the sloppy variant a simple:

base->softirq_activated = false;

is sufficient.

> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1657,18 +1703,28 @@ static __latent_entropy void run_timer_softirq(struct softirq_action *h)
> */
> void run_local_timers(void)
> {
> - struct timer_base *base = this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_STD]);
> + int* block_softirq = this_cpu_ptr(&block_softirqs);
> + struct timer_base *base;
>
> hrtimer_run_queues();
> +
> + /* Skip if TIMER_SOFTIRQ is already running for this CPU */
> + if (READ_ONCE(*block_softirq))
> + return;
> +
> + base = this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_STD]);

And this here becomes:

if (base->softirq_activated)
return;
> +
> /* Raise the softirq only if required. */
> - if (time_before(jiffies, base->clk)) {
> + if (time_before(jiffies, base->clk) || !tick_find_expired(base)) {
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) || !base->nohz_active)
> return;
> /* CPU is awake, so check the deferrable base. */
> base++;
> - if (time_before(jiffies, base->clk))
> + if (time_before(jiffies, base->clk) || !tick_find_expired(base))
> return;

To make that work, all you need here is:

base--;

> }

and
base->softirq_activated = true;

> static void __init init_timer_cpu(int cpu)
> {
> struct timer_base *base;
> + int* block_softirq;
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < NR_BASES; i++) {
> @@ -1852,6 +1910,10 @@ static void __init init_timer_cpu(int cpu)
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> init_swait_queue_head(&base->wait_for_running_timer);
> #endif
> + base->expired_count = 0;
> +
> + block_softirq = per_cpu_ptr(&block_softirqs, cpu);
> + *block_softirq = 0;

What kind of voodoo initialization is this? Do you not trust BSS? Or do you
not make sure that the stuff is brought into proper state when a CPU goes
offline?

Aside of the above, this patch wants to be split into two pieces:

1) Embedd the hlist heads for expired bucket collection into base
struct and adjust the code accordingly.

2) Implement the conditional softirq raise machinery

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-18 23:34    [W:0.089 / U:15.792 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site