Re: [REGRESSION] osnoise: "eventpoll: Replace rwlock with spinlock" causes ~50µs noise spikes on isolated PREEMPT_RT cores

Florian Bezdeka
2026-03-27T07:54:30Z

On Thu, 2026-03-26 at 13:12 -0500, Crystal Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-03-26 at 16:00 +0200, Ionut Nechita (Wind River) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm reporting a regression introduced by commit 0c43094f8cc9
> > ("eventpoll: Replace rwlock with spinlock"), backported to stable 6.12.y.
> >
> > On a PREEMPT_RT system with nohz_full isolated cores, this commit causes
> > significant osnoise degradation on the isolated CPUs.
> >
> > Setup:
> >    - Kernel: 6.12.78 with PREEMPT_RT
> >    - Hardware: x86_64, dual-socket (CPUs 0-63)
> >    - Boot params: nohz_full=1-16,33-48 isolcpus=nohz,domain,managed_irq,1-16,33-48
> >      rcu_nocbs=1-31,33-63 kthread_cpus=0,32 irqaffinity=17-31,49-63
> >    - Tool: osnoise tracer (./osnoise -c 1-16,33-48)
>
> Is SMT disabled?
>
>
> > With commit applied (spinlock, kernel 6.12.78-vanilla-0):
> >
> >    CPU    RUNTIME   MAX_NOISE   AVAIL%      NOISE  NMI   IRQ   SIRQ  Thread
> >    [001]   950000       50163   94.719%        14    0   6864     0    5922
> >    [004]   950000       50294   94.705%        14    0   6864     0    5920
> >    [007]   950000       49782   94.759%        14    0   6864     1    5921
> >    [033]   950000       49528   94.786%        15    0   6864     2    5922
> >    [016]   950000       48551   94.889%        20    0   6863    19    5942
> >    [008]   950000       44343   95.332%        14    0   6864     0    5925
> >
> > With commit reverted (rwlock restored, kernel 6.12.78-vanilla-1):
> >
> >    CPU    RUNTIME   MAX_NOISE   AVAIL%      NOISE  NMI   IRQ   SIRQ  Thread
> >    [001]   950000           0   100.000%       0    0      6     0       0
> >    [004]   950000           0   100.000%       0    0      4     0       0
> >    [007]   950000           0   100.000%       0    0      4     0       0
> >    [033]   950000           0   100.000%       0    0      4     0       0
> >    [016]   950000           0   100.000%       0    0      5     0       0
> >    [008]   950000           7    99.999%       7    0      5     0       0
> >
> > Summary across all isolated cores (32 CPUs):
> >
> >                            With spinlock       With rwlock (reverted)
> >    MAX noise (ns):         44,343 - 51,869     0 - 10
> >    IRQ count/sample:       ~6,650 - 6,870      3 - 7
> >    Thread noise/sample:    ~5,700 - 5,940      0 - 1
> >    CPU availability:       94.5% - 95.3%       ~100%
> >
> > The regression is roughly 3 orders of magnitude in noise on isolated
> > cores. The test was run over many consecutive samples and the pattern
> > is consistent: with the spinlock, every isolated core sees thousands
> > of IRQs and ~50µs of noise per 950ms sample window. With the rwlock,
> > the cores are essentially silent.
> >
> > Note that CPU 016 occasionally shows SIRQ noise (softirq) with both
> > kernels, which is a separate known issue with the tick on the first
> > nohz_full CPU. The eventpoll regression is the dominant noise source.
> >
> > My understanding of the root cause: the original rwlock allowed
> > ep_poll_callback() (producer side, running from IRQ context on any CPU)
> > to use read_lock, which does not cause cross-CPU contention on isolated
> > cores when no local epoll activity exists. With the spinlock conversion,
> > on PREEMPT_RT spinlock_t becomes an rt_mutex. This means that even if
> > the isolated core is not involved in any epoll activity, the lock's
> > cacheline bouncing and potential PI-boosted wakeups from housekeeping
> > CPUs can inject noise into the isolated cores via IPI or cache
> > invalidation traffic.
>
> That sounds like a general isolation problem... it's not a bug for non-
> isolated CPUs to bounce cachelines or send IPIs to each other.
>
> Whether it's IPIs or not, osnoise is showing IRQs on the isolated CPUs,
> so I'd look into which IRQs and why.  Even with the patch reverted,
> there are some IRQs on the isolated CPUs.
>
> >
> > The commit message acknowledges the throughput regression but argues
> > real workloads won't notice. However, for RT/latency-sensitive
> > deployments with CPU isolation, the impact is severe and measurable
> > even with zero local epoll usage.
> >
> > I believe this needs either:
> >    a) A revert of the backport for stable RT trees, or
>
> Even if the patch weren't trying to address an RT issue in the first
> place, this would just be a bandaid rather than a real solution.

A revert alone is not an option as it would bring back [1] and [2] for
all LTS releases that did not receive [3]. If my memory is correct only
6.18 has it.

The result was a system lockup easily triggered by using the epoll
interface.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rt-users/20210825132754.GA895675@lothringen/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rt-users/xhsmhttqvnall.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250829081120.806-1-ziqianlu@bytedance.com/

Florian