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
next prev parent 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).