Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on newer CPUs

[david laight <david.laight@runbox.com>]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:31:26 -0800
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 11:05:58AM +0000, david laight wrote:
...
> > For subtle reasons one of the mitigations that slows kernel entry caused
> > a doubling of the execution time of a largely single-threaded task that
> > spends almost all its time in userspace!
> > (I thought I'd disabled it at compile time - but the config option
> > changed underneath me...)  
> 
> That is surprising. If its okay, could you please share more details about
> this application? Or any other way I can reproduce this?

The 'trigger' program is a multi-threaded program that wakes up every 10ms
to process RTP and TDM audio data.
So we have a low RT priority process with one thread per cpu.
Since they are RT they usually get scheduled on the same cpu as last lime.
I think this simple program will have the desired effect:
A main process that does:
	syscall(SYS_clock_gettime, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &start_time);
	start_time += 1sec;
	for (n = 1; n < num_cpu; n++)
		pthread_create(thread_code, start_time);
	thread_code(start_time);
with:
thread_code(ts)
{
	for (;;) {
		ts += 10ms;
		syscall(SYS_clock_nanosleep, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, TIMER_ABSTIME, &ts, NULL);
		do_work();
	}

So all the threads wake up at exactly the same time every 10ms.
(You need to use syscall(), don't look at what glibc does.)

On my system the program wasn't doing anything, so do_work() was empty.
What matters is whether all the threads end up running at the same time.
I managed that using pthread_broadcast(), but the clock code above
ought to be worse (and I've since changed the daemon to work that way
to avoid all this issues with pthread_broadcast() being sequential
and threads not running because the target cpu is running an ISR or
just looping in kernel).

The process that gets 'hit' is anything cpu bound.
Even a shell loop (eg while :; do ;: done) but with a counter will do.

Without the 'trigger' program, it will (mostly) sit on one cpu and the
clock frequency of that cpu will increase to (say) 3GHz while the other
all run at 800Mhz.
But the 'trigger' program runs threads on all the cpu at the same time.
So the 'hit' program is pre-empted and is later rescheduled on a
different cpu - running at 800MHz.
The cpu speed increases, but 10ms later it gets bounced again.

The real issue is that the cpu speed is associated with the cpu, not
the process running on it.

	David