lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: commit e9e9250b: sync wakeup bustage when waker is an RT task
From
Date
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 19:07 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 14:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 13:57 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > This commit excluded RT tasks from rq->load, was that intentional? The
> > > comment in struct rq states that load reflects *all* tasks, but since
> > > this commit, that's no longer true.
> >
> > Right, because a static load value does not accurately reflect a RT task
> > which can run as long as it pretty well pleases. So instead we measure
> > the time spend running !fair tasks and scale down the cpu_power
> > proportionally.
> >
> > > Looking at lmbench lat_udp in a PREEMPT_RT kernel, I noticed that
> > > wake_affine() is failing for sync wakeups when it should not. It's
> > > doing so because the waker in this case is an RT kernel thread
> > > (sirq-net-rx) - we subtract the sync waker's weight, when it was never
> > > added in the first place, resulting in this_load going gaga. End result
> > > is quite high latency numbers due to tasks jabbering cross-cache.
> > >
> > > If the exclusion was intentional, I suppose I can do a waker class check
> > > in wake_affine() to fix it.
> >
> > So basically make all RT wakeups sync?
>
> I was going to just skip subtracting waker's weight ala
>
> /*
> * If sync wakeup then subtract the (maximum possible)
> * effect of the currently running task from the load
> * of the current CPU:
> */
> if (sync && !task_has_rt_policy(curr))

One-liner doesn't work. We have one task on the cfs_rq, the one who is
the waker in !PREEMPT_RT, which is a fail case for wake_affine() if you
don't do the weight subtraction. I did the below instead.

sched: RT waker sync wakeup bugfix

An RT waker's weight is not on the runqueue, but we try to subrtact it anyway
in the sync wakeup case, sending this_load negative. This leads to affine
wakeup failure in cases where it should succeed. This was found while testing
an PREEMPT_RT kernel with lmbench's lat_udp. In a PREEMPT_RT kernel, softirq
threads act as a ~proxy for the !RT buddy. Approximate !PREEMPT_RT sync wakeup
behavior by looking at the buddy instead, and subtracting the maximum task weight
that will not send this_load negative.

Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
kernel/sched_fair.c | 9 +++++++++
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 5240469..cc40849 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1280,6 +1280,15 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int sync)
tg = task_group(current);
weight = current->se.load.weight;

+ /*
+ * An RT waker's weight is not on the runqueue. Subtract the
+ * maximum task weight that will not send this_load negative.
+ */
+ if (task_has_rt_policy(current)) {
+ weight = max_t(unsigned long, NICE_0_LOAD, p->se.load.weight);
+ weight = min(weight, this_load);
+ }
+
this_load += effective_load(tg, this_cpu, -weight, -weight);
load += effective_load(tg, prev_cpu, 0, -weight);
}



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-16 09:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans