lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[patch 19/50] sched: fix bad missed wakeups in the i386, x86_64, ia64, ACPI and APM idle code
-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Fernando Lopez-Lezcano reported frequent scheduling latencies and audio
xruns starting at the 2.6.18-rt kernel, and those problems persisted all
until current -rt kernels. The latencies were serious and unjustified by
system load, often in the milliseconds range.

After a patient and heroic multi-month effort of Fernando, where he
tested dozens of kernels, tried various configs, boot options,
test-patches of mine and provided latency traces of those incidents, the
following 'smoking gun' trace was captured by him:

_------=> CPU#
/ _-----=> irqs-off
| / _----=> need-resched
|| / _---=> hardirq/softirq
||| / _--=> preempt-depth
|||| /
||||| delay
cmd pid ||||| time | caller
\ / ||||| \ | /
IRQ_19-1479 1D..1 0us : __trace_start_sched_wakeup (try_to_wake_up)
IRQ_19-1479 1D..1 0us : __trace_start_sched_wakeup <<...>-5856> (37 0)
IRQ_19-1479 1D..1 0us : __trace_start_sched_wakeup (c01262ba 0 0)
IRQ_19-1479 1D..1 0us : resched_task (try_to_wake_up)
IRQ_19-1479 1D..1 0us : __spin_unlock_irqrestore (try_to_wake_up)
...
<idle>-0 1...1 11us!: default_idle (cpu_idle)
...
<idle>-0 0Dn.1 602us : smp_apic_timer_interrupt (c0103baf 1 0)
...
<...>-5856 0D..2 618us : __switch_to (__schedule)
<...>-5856 0D..2 618us : __schedule <<idle>-0> (20 162)
<...>-5856 0D..2 619us : __spin_unlock_irq (__schedule)
<...>-5856 0...1 619us : trace_stop_sched_switched (__schedule)
<...>-5856 0D..1 619us : trace_stop_sched_switched <<...>-5856> (37 0)

what is visible in this trace is that CPU#1 ran try_to_wake_up() for
PID:5856, it placed PID:5856 on CPU#0's runqueue and ran resched_task()
for CPU#0. But it decided to not send an IPI that no CPU - due to
TS_POLLING. But CPU#0 never woke up after its NEED_RESCHED bit was set,
and only rescheduled to PID:5856 upon the next lapic timer IRQ. The
result was a 600+ usecs latency and a missed wakeup!

the bug turned out to be an idle-wakeup bug introduced into the mainline
kernel this summer via an optimization in the x86_64 tree:

commit 495ab9c045e1b0e5c82951b762257fe1c9d81564
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Date: Mon Jun 26 13:59:11 2006 +0200

[PATCH] i386/x86-64/ia64: Move polling flag into thread_info_status

During some profiling I noticed that default_idle causes a lot of
memory traffic. I think that is caused by the atomic operations
to clear/set the polling flag in thread_info. There is actually
no reason to make this atomic - only the idle thread does it
to itself, other CPUs only read it. So I moved it into ti->status.

the problem is this type of change:

if (!hlt_counter && boot_cpu_data.hlt_works_ok) {
- clear_thread_flag(TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG);
+ current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
while (!need_resched()) {
local_irq_disable();

this changes clear_thread_flag() to an explicit clearing of TS_POLLING.
clear_thread_flag() is defined as:

clear_bit(flag, &ti->flags);

and clear_bit() is a LOCK-ed atomic instruction on all x86 platforms:

static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
{
__asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX
"btrl %1,%0"

hence smp_mb__after_clear_bit() is defined as a simple compile barrier:

#define smp_mb__after_clear_bit() barrier()

but the explicit TS_POLLING clearing introduced by the patch:

+ current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;

is not an atomic op! So the clearing of the TS_POLLING bit is freely
reorderable with the reading of the NEED_RESCHED bit - and both now
reside in different memory addresses.

CPU idle wakeup very much depends on ordered memory ops, the clearing of
the TS_POLLING flag must always be done before we test need_resched()
and hit the idle instruction(s). [Symmetrically, the wakeup code needs
to set NEED_RESCHED before it tests the TS_POLLING flag, so memory
ordering is paramount.]

Fernando's dual-core Athlon64 system has a sufficiently advanced memory
ordering model so that it triggered this scenario very often.

( And it also turned out that the reason why these latencies never
triggered on my testsystems is that i routinely use idle=poll, which
was the only idle variant not affected by this bug. )

The fix is to change the smp_mb__after_clear_bit() to an smp_mb(), to
act as an absolute barrier between the TS_POLLING write and the
NEED_RESCHED read. This affects almost all idling methods (default,
ACPI, APM), on all 3 x86 architectures: i386, x86_64, ia64.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Tested-by: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@ccrma.Stanford.EDU>
[chrisw: backport to 2.6.19.1]
Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
---
arch/i386/kernel/apm.c | 6 +++++-
arch/i386/kernel/process.c | 7 ++++++-
arch/ia64/kernel/process.c | 10 ++++++++--
arch/x86_64/kernel/process.c | 6 +++++-
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 12 ++++++++++--
5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.19.1.orig/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c
+++ linux-2.6.19.1/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c
@@ -784,7 +784,11 @@ static int apm_do_idle(void)
polling = !!(current_thread_info()->status & TS_POLLING);
if (polling) {
current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+ /*
+ * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
+ * test NEED_RESCHED:
+ */
+ smp_mb();
}
if (!need_resched()) {
idled = 1;
--- linux-2.6.19.1.orig/arch/i386/kernel/process.c
+++ linux-2.6.19.1/arch/i386/kernel/process.c
@@ -103,7 +103,12 @@ void default_idle(void)

if (!hlt_counter && boot_cpu_data.hlt_works_ok) {
current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+ /*
+ * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
+ * test NEED_RESCHED:
+ */
+ smp_mb();
+
while (!need_resched()) {
local_irq_disable();
if (!need_resched())
--- linux-2.6.19.1.orig/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
+++ linux-2.6.19.1/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
@@ -268,10 +268,16 @@ cpu_idle (void)

/* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
while (1) {
- if (can_do_pal_halt)
+ if (can_do_pal_halt) {
current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
- else
+ /*
+ * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
+ * test NEED_RESCHED:
+ */
+ smp_mb();
+ } else {
current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
+ }

if (!need_resched()) {
void (*idle)(void);
--- linux-2.6.19.1.orig/arch/x86_64/kernel/process.c
+++ linux-2.6.19.1/arch/x86_64/kernel/process.c
@@ -111,7 +111,11 @@ static void default_idle(void)
local_irq_enable();

current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+ /*
+ * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
+ * test NEED_RESCHED:
+ */
+ smp_mb();
while (!need_resched()) {
local_irq_disable();
if (!need_resched())
--- linux-2.6.19.1.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+++ linux-2.6.19.1/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
@@ -211,7 +211,11 @@ acpi_processor_power_activate(struct acp
static void acpi_safe_halt(void)
{
current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+ /*
+ * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
+ * test NEED_RESCHED:
+ */
+ smp_mb();
if (!need_resched())
safe_halt();
current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
@@ -345,7 +349,11 @@ static void acpi_processor_idle(void)
*/
if (cx->type == ACPI_STATE_C2 || cx->type == ACPI_STATE_C3) {
current_thread_info()->status &= ~TS_POLLING;
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+ /*
+ * TS_POLLING-cleared state must be visible before we
+ * test NEED_RESCHED:
+ */
+ smp_mb();
if (need_resched()) {
current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
local_irq_enable();
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-06 03:45    [W:0.169 / U:3.656 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site