From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ciunas Bennett <ciunas@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Douglas Freimuth <freimuth@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>,
mingo@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com,
clrkwllms@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Further restrict the preemption modes
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 12:52:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260303115235.GQ1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a3bbf315-536f-429e-afb2-adcbf508a66f@linux.ibm.com>
On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 09:15:55AM +0000, Ciunas Bennett wrote:
> A quick update on the issue.
> Introducing kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic() appears to make the problem go away on my setup.
> That said, this still begs the question: why does irqfd_wakeup behave differently (or poorly) in this scenario compared to the in-atomic IRQ injection path?
> Is there a known interaction with workqueues, contexts, or locking that would explain the divergence here?
>
> Observations:
> irqfd_wakeup: triggers the problematic behaviour.
> Forcing in-atomic IRQ injection (kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic): issue not observed.
>
> @Peter Zijlstra — Peter, do you have thoughts on how the workqueue scheduling context here could differ enough to cause this regression?
> Any pointers on what to trace specifically in irqfd_wakeup and the work item path would be appreciated.
So the thing that LAZY does different from FULL is that it delays
preemption a bit.
This has two ramifications:
1) some ping-pong workloads will turn into block+wakeup, adding
overhead.
FULL: running your task A, an interrupt would come in, wake task B and
set Need Resched and the interrupt return path calls schedule() and
you're task B. B does its thing, 'wakes' A and blocks.
LAZY: running your task A, an interrupt would come in, wake task B (no
NR set), you continue running A, A blocks for it needs something of B,
now you schedule() [*] B runs, does its thing, does an actual wakeup of
A and blocks.
The distinct difference here is that LAZY does a block of A and
consequently B has to do a full wakeup of A, whereas FULL doesn't do a
block of A, and hence the wakeup of A is NOP as well.
2) Since the schedule() is delayed, it might happen that by the time it
does get around to it, your task B is no longer the most eligible
option.
Same as above, except now, C is also woken, and the schedule marked with
[*] picks C, this then results in a detour, delaying things further.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-03 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20251219101502.GB1132199@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
2026-02-24 15:45 ` [PATCH] sched: Further restrict the preemption modes Ciunas Bennett
2026-02-24 17:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-25 9:56 ` Ciunas Bennett
2026-02-25 2:30 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-02-25 16:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2026-02-25 18:30 ` Douglas Freimuth
2026-03-03 9:15 ` Ciunas Bennett
2026-03-03 11:52 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=20260303115235.GQ1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=brueckner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=ciunas@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=freimuth@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox