From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Dietmar Eggemann" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: Choose the CPU where short task is running during wake up
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 21:55:45 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YyXR4YgHeTR4Negc@chenyu5-mobl1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YyRhvEGS4ivPGf+z@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2022-09-16 at 13:45:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:54:07AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > And the rq lock bottleneck is composed of two paths(perf profile):
> >
> > (path1):
> > raw_spin_rq_lock_nested.constprop.0;
> > try_to_wake_up;
> > default_wake_function;
> > autoremove_wake_function;
> > __wake_up_common;
> > __wake_up_common_lock;
> > __wake_up_sync_key;
> > pipe_write;
> > new_sync_write;
> > vfs_write;
> > ksys_write;
> > __x64_sys_write;
> > do_syscall_64;
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;write
>
> Can you please addr2line -i the raw_spin_rq_lock callsite so we know which is
> the one causing grief?
>
> Specifically; I'm worried about PSI, psi_ttwu_dequeue() can cause ttwu()
> to take _2_ rq->lock, which absolutely blows for this case.
Above perf profile result was captured with 'psi=0' appended in the boot
commandline, and with NO_TTWU_QUEUE on 6.0-rc4. To narrow down we disabled
psi the first time we saw a rq lock contention. But even with psi=0 we still
observe the rq lock contention.
To confirm this, the 'perf report -F+period,srcline' was used to leverage
addr2line to parse the line. However it seems that with DWARF v4 enabled
in the kernel, the rq lock issue could not be reproduced. So I hacked the
code to make ttwu_queue() non-static, and perf profile shows that it grabs
the rq lock:
raw_spin_rq_lock_nested.constprop.0;
ttwu_queue; <----------
try_to_wake_up;
default_wake_function;
autoremove_wake_function;
__wake_up_common;
__wake_up_common_lock;
__wake_up_sync_key;
pipe_write;
vfs_write;
ksys_write;
__x64_sys_write;
do_syscall_64;
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;
write
Then if TTWU_QUEUE is enabled, the rq lock contention issue could
not be reproduced, but long idle duration was still observed due to
sched_ttwu_pending(as descibed in the commit log).
thanks,
Chenyu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-17 13:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-15 16:54 [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: Choose the CPU where short task is running during wake up Chen Yu
2022-09-15 17:10 ` Tim Chen
2022-09-16 10:49 ` Chen Yu
2022-09-16 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-09-17 13:55 ` Chen Yu [this message]
2022-09-16 11:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-09-17 14:15 ` Chen Yu
2022-09-26 5:50 ` K Prateek Nayak
2022-09-26 14:39 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2022-09-29 16:58 ` K Prateek Nayak
2022-09-30 17:26 ` Chen Yu
2022-09-29 5:25 ` Chen Yu
2022-09-29 6:59 ` Honglei Wang
2022-09-29 17:34 ` K Prateek Nayak
2022-09-30 0:58 ` Honglei Wang
2022-09-30 16:03 ` Chen Yu
2022-09-29 17:19 ` K Prateek Nayak
2022-09-29 8:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2022-09-30 16:53 ` Chen Yu
2022-10-03 12:42 ` Vincent Guittot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YyXR4YgHeTR4Negc@chenyu5-mobl1 \
--to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
--cc=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.