xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Cc: sstabellini@kernel.org, wei.liu2@citrix.com,
	George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
	ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, tim@xen.org, jbeulich@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] mm: Scrub memory from idle loop
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:05:10 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b4b016d5-164a-f4d2-6830-3d130f59f59b@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1494517737.7393.7.camel@citrix.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4846 bytes --]

On 05/11/2017 11:48 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 10:19 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
>>>> index 90e2b1f..a5f62b5 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
>>>> @@ -118,7 +118,8 @@ static void idle_loop(void)
>>>>      {
>>>>          if ( cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()) )
>>>>              play_dead();
>>>> -        (*pm_idle)();
>>>> +        if ( !scrub_free_pages() )
>>>> +            (*pm_idle)();
>>>>          do_tasklet();
>>>>
>>> This means that, if we got here to run a tasklet (as in, if the
>>> idle
>>> vCPU has been forced into execution, because there were a vCPU
>>> context
>>> tasklet wanting to run), we will (potentially) do some scrubbing
>>> first.
>>>
>> We can move do_tasklet() above scrub_free_pages(). And new tasklet
>> after
>> that would result in a softirq being set so we'd do an early exit
>> from
>> scrub_free_pages().
>>
> How early?
>
> In fact, right now, if there is one tasklet queued, this is what
> happens:
>
>  tasklet_schedule(t)
>    tasklet_enqueue(t)
>      test_and_set_bit(_TASKLET_enqueued, tasklet_work_to_do);
>      raise_softirq(SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
>  schedule()
>    set_bit(_TASKLET_scheduled, tasklet_work_to_do)
>    tasklet_work_scheduled = 1;
>    do_schedule(tasklet_work_scheduled)
>      csched_schedule(tasklet_work_to_do)
>        snext = CSCHED_VCPU(idle_vcpu[cpu]);
>  idle_loop()
>    (*pm_idle)()
>      if ( !cpu_is_haltable() ) return;
>    do_tasklet() /* runs tasklet t */
>      clear_bit(_TASKLET_enqueued, work_to_do); /* list_empty(list) == true */
>      raise_softirq(SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
>    do_softirq()
>  schedule()
>    clear_bit(_TASKLET_scheduled, tasklet_work);
>    tasklet_work_scheduled = 0;
>    do_schedule(tasklet_work_scheduled)
>      csched_schedule(tasklet_work_to_do)
>        snext = CSCHED_VCPU(idle_vcpu[cpu]);
>  idle_loop()
>    (*pm_idle)()
>      if ( !cpu_is_haltable() )
>  ...
>
> If we move do_tasklet up, as you suggest, this is what happens:
>
>  tasklet_schedule(t)
>    tasklet_enqueue(t)
>      test_and_set_bit(_TASKLET_enqueued, tasklet_work_to_do);
>      raise_softirq(SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
>  schedule()
>    set_bit(_TASKLET_scheduled, tasklet_work_to_do)
>    tasklet_work_scheduled = 1;
>    do_schedule(tasklet_work_scheduled)
>      csched_schedule(tasklet_work_to_do)
>        snext = CSCHED_VCPU(idle_vcpu[cpu]);
>  idle_loop()
>    do_tasklet() /* runs tasklet t */
>      clear_bit(_TASKLET_enqueued, work_to_do); /* list_empty(list) == true */
>      raise_softirq(SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ);
>    if ( !scrub_free_pages() )
>      //do some scrubbing, but softirq_pending() is true, so return 1
>    do_softirq()
>  schedule()
>    clear_bit(_TASKLET_scheduled, tasklet_work);
>    tasklet_work_scheduled = 0;
>    do_schedule(tasklet_work_scheduled)
>      csched_schedule(tasklet_work_to_do)
>        snext = CSCHED_VCPU(idle_vcpu[cpu]);
>  idle_loop()
>    if ( !scrub_free_pages() )
>      //do the scrubbing, returns 0, so we enter the if
>      (*pm_idle)()
>        if ( !cpu_is_haltable() )
>  ...
>
> IOW (provided I'm understanding your code right, of course), I still
> see it happening that we switched to idle *not* because the system was
> idle, but for running a tasklet, and yet we end up doing at least some
> scrubbing (like if the system were idle).
>
> Which still feels wrong to me.
>
> If there's more than one tasklet queued (or another one, or more,
> is/are queued before the one t is processed), it's even worse, because
> we go through the whole schedule()->idle_loop()->do_tasklet() again and
> again, and at each step we do a bit of scrubbing, before going back to
> schedule().
>
> It probably would be at least a bit better, if scrub_free_pages() would
> check for softirqs() _before_ starting any scrubbing (which I don't
> think it does, right now, am I right?).

Right.

I didn't realize that do_tasklet() also schedules softirq. So you are
suggesting something along the lines of

        do_tasklet();

        if ( !softirq_pending(smp_processor_id() && !scrub_free_pages() )
            (*pm_idle)();

        do_softirq();


>
>> OTOH since, as you say, we only get to idle loop() if no tasklet is
>> pending (cpu_is_haltable() test) then would even that be needed?
>>
> Err... sorry, not getting. It's the other way round. One of the reasons
> why we end up executing idle_loop(), is that there is at least a
> tasklet pending.

Nevermind that. I was thinking we enter idle_loop() based on
cpu_is_haltable().

-boris

>
> Where we only get to if there's nothing pending is to calling
> (*pm_idle)().
>
> Regards,
> Dario



[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-11 17:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-14 15:37 [PATCH v3 0/9] Memory scrubbing from idle loop Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] mm: Separate free page chunk merging into its own routine Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04  9:45   ` Jan Beulich
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] mm: Place unscrubbed pages at the end of pagelist Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04 10:17   ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-04 14:53     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04 15:00       ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-08 16:41   ` George Dunlap
2017-05-08 16:59     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] mm: Scrub pages in alloc_heap_pages() if needed Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04 14:44   ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-04 15:04     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04 15:36       ` Jan Beulich
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] mm: Scrub memory from idle loop Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04 15:31   ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-04 17:09     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 10:21       ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-05 13:42         ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 14:10           ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-05 14:14             ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-05 14:27               ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 14:51                 ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-05 15:23                   ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 16:05                     ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-05 16:49                       ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-08  7:14                         ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-11 10:26   ` Dario Faggioli
2017-05-11 14:19     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-11 15:48       ` Dario Faggioli
2017-05-11 17:05         ` Boris Ostrovsky [this message]
2017-05-12  8:17           ` Dario Faggioli
2017-05-12 14:42             ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] mm: Do not discard already-scrubbed pages if softirqs are pending Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04 15:43   ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-04 17:18     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 10:27       ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-05 13:51         ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 14:13           ` Jan Beulich
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] spinlock: Introduce spin_lock_cb() Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] mm: Keep pages available for allocation while scrubbing Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-04 16:03   ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-04 17:26     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 10:28       ` Jan Beulich
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] mm: Print number of unscrubbed pages in 'H' debug handler Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] mm: Make sure pages are scrubbed Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-05 15:05   ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-08 15:48     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-05-08 16:23       ` Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-02 14:46 ` [PATCH v3 0/9] Memory scrubbing from idle loop Boris Ostrovsky
2017-05-02 14:58   ` Jan Beulich
2017-05-02 15:07     ` Boris Ostrovsky

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=b4b016d5-164a-f4d2-6830-3d130f59f59b@oracle.com \
    --to=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
    --cc=ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=tim@xen.org \
    --cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).