Re: [RFC] sched, x86: Prevent resched interrupts if task in kernel mode and !CONFIG_PREEMPT

[Kirill Tkhai]

Ð ÐÑ, 23/01/2015 Ð 18:36 -0800, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ð ÐÑ, 23/01/2015 Ð 08:24 -0800, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 06:53:32PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S |   10 ++++++++++
> >> >>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> >> index c653dc4..a046ba8 100644
> >> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> >> >> @@ -409,6 +409,13 @@ GLOBAL(system_call_after_swapgs)
> >> >>       movq_cfi rax,(ORIG_RAX-ARGOFFSET)
> >> >>       movq  %rcx,RIP-ARGOFFSET(%rsp)
> >> >>       CFI_REL_OFFSET rip,RIP-ARGOFFSET
> >> >> +#if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(SMP)
> >> >> +     /*
> >> >> +      * Tell resched_curr() do not send useless interrupts to us.
> >> >> +      * Kernel isn't preemptible till sysret_careful() anyway.
> >> >> +      */
> >> >> +     LOCK ; bts $TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG,TI_flags+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP-ARGOFFSET)
> >> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> That's kind of expensive.  What's the !SMP part for?
> >
> > smp_send_reschedule() is NOP on UP. There is no problem.
> 
> Shouldn't it be #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && defined(CONFIG_SMP) then?

Definitely, thanks.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> >>       testl $_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY,TI_flags+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP-ARGOFFSET)
> >> >>       jnz tracesys
> >> >>  system_call_fastpath:
> >> >> @@ -427,6 +434,9 @@ GLOBAL(system_call_after_swapgs)
> >> >>   * Has incomplete stack frame and undefined top of stack.
> >> >>   */
> >> >>  ret_from_sys_call:
> >> >> +#if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(SMP)
> >> >> +     LOCK ; btr $TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG,TI_flags+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP-ARGOFFSET)
> >> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> If only it were this simple.  There are lots of ways out of syscalls,
> >> and this is only one of them :(  If we did this, I'd rather do it
> >> through the do_notify_resume mechanism or something.
> >
> > Yes, syscall is the only thing I did as an example.
> >
> >> I don't see any way to do this without at least one atomic op or
> >> smp_mb per syscall, and that's kind of expensive.
> >
> > JFI, doesn't x86 set_bit() lock a small area of memory? I thought
> > it's not very expensive on this arch (some bus optimizations or
> > something like this).
> 
> An entire syscall on x86 is well under 200 cycles.  lock addl is >20
> cycles for me, and I don't see why the atomic bitops would be faster.
> (Oddly, mfence is slower than lock addl, which is really odd, since
> lock addl implies mfence.)  So this overhead may actually matter.

Yeah, it's really big overhead.

> >
> >> Would it make sense to try to use context tracking instead?  On
> >> systems that use context tracking, syscalls are already expensive, and
> >> we're already keeping track of which CPUs are in user mode.
> >
> > I'll look at context_tracking, but I'm not sure some smp synchronization
> > there.
> 
> It could be combinable with existing synchronization there.

I'll look at this. Thanks!

Kirill

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/