Re: [PATCH] sched: fix clear NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 05:29:39PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 4 June 2013 16:44, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:48:47PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 4 June 2013 13:19, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:11:47PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> >> On 4 June 2013 12:26, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:36:11AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The best I can seem to come up with is something like the below; but I think
> >> >> >> its ghastly. Surely we can do something saner with that bit.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Having to clear it at 3 different places is just wrong.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We could clear the flag early in scheduler_ipi() and set some
> >> >> > specific value in rq->idle_balance that tells we want nohz idle
> >> >> > balancing from the softirq, something like this untested:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure that we can have less than 2 places to clear it: cancel
> >> >> place or acknowledge place otherwise we can face a situation where
> >> >> idle load balance will be triggered 2 consecutive times because
> >> >> NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK will be cleared before the idle load balance has
> >> >> been done and had a chance to migrate tasks.
> >> >
> >> > I guess it depends what is the minimum value of rq->next_balance, it seems
> >> > to be large enough to avoid this kind of incident. Although I don't
> >> > know well the whole logic with rq->next_balance and ilb trigger so I must
> >> > defer to you.
> >>
> >> In the trace that was showing the issue, i can see that both CPU0 and
> >> CPU1 were trying to trig ILB almost simultaneously and the
> >> test_and_set NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK filters one request so i would say that
> >> clearing the bit before the end of the idle load balance sequence can
> >> generate such sequence
> >
> > I see.
> >
> >>
> >> In the sequence below, i have minimized the clear of NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK
> >> in 2 places : acknowledge and cancel. I have reused part of the
> >> proposal from peter which clears the bit if the condition doesn't
> >> match but i have reordered the tests to done that only if all other
> >> condition are matching
> >>
> >>  static inline bool got_nohz_idle_kick(void)
> >>  {
> >> - int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >> - return idle_cpu(cpu) && test_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(cpu));
> >> + bool nohz_kick = test_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(cpu));
> >> +
> >> +       if (!nohz_kick)
> >> +               return false;
> >> +
> >> +       if (idle_cpu(cpu) && !need_resched())
> >> +               return true;
> >> +
> >> +       clear_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(cpu));
> >> +       return false;
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  #else /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
> >> @@ -1393,8 +1401,9 @@ static void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
> >>
> >>  void scheduler_ipi(void)
> >>  {
> >> - if (llist_empty(&this_rq()->wake_list) && !got_nohz_idle_kick()
> >> -    && !tick_nohz_full_cpu(smp_processor_id()))
> >> + if (llist_empty(&this_rq()->wake_list)
> >> + && !tick_nohz_full_cpu(smp_processor_id())
> >> + && !got_nohz_idle_kick())
> >>   return;
> >
> > But we still need got_nohz_idle_kick() to be the first check, don't we? Otherwise
> > if we run an "idle -> quick task slice -> idle" sequence we may keep the flag
> > but lose the notifying IPI in between.
> 
> I'm not sure to catch the sequence you are describing above: "idle ->
> quick task slice -> idle".
> In addition, got_nohz_idle_kick must be the last tested condition (in
> my proposal) in order to clear NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK only if we are sure
> that we are going to return without possibility to trig the Idle load
> balance

Right, sorry for the confusion.