[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling
From:       Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde () linux ! ibm ! com>
Date:       2024-04-26 7:58:10
Message-ID: 63314d92-9226-4005-a166-37c8648c5351 () linux ! ibm ! com
[Download RAW message or body]



On 4/23/24 9:43 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 08:23, Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Are these the only arch bits that need to be defined? am I missing something very
>> basic here? will try to debug this further. Any inputs?
> 
> I don't think powerpc uses the generic *_exit_to_user_mode() helper
> functions, so you'll need to also add that logic to the low-level
> powerpc code.
> 
> IOW, on x86, with this patch series, patch 06/30 did this:
> 
> -               if (ti_work & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED)
> +               if (ti_work & (_TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY))
>                         schedule();
> 
> in kernel/entry/common.c exit_to_user_mode_loop().
> 
> But that works on x86 because it uses the irqentry_exit_to_user_mode().
> 
> On PowerPC, I think you need to at least fix up
> 
>     interrupt_exit_user_prepare_main()
> 
> similarly (and any other paths like that - I used to know the powerpc
> code, but that was long long LOOONG ago).
> 
>                 Linus

Thank you Linus for the pointers. That indeed did the trick. 

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c
index eca293794a1e..f0f38bf5cea9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/interrupt.c
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ interrupt_exit_user_prepare_main(unsigned long ret, struct pt_regs *regs)
        ti_flags = read_thread_flags();
        while (unlikely(ti_flags & (_TIF_USER_WORK_MASK & ~_TIF_RESTORE_TM))) {
                local_irq_enable();
-               if (ti_flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED) {
+               if (ti_flags & (_TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY) ) {
                        schedule();
                } else {


By adding LAZY checks in interrupt_exit_user_prepare_main, softlockup is no longer seen and 
hackbench results are more or less same on smaller system(96CPUS). However, I still see 20-50% 
regression on the larger system(320 CPUS). I will continue to debug why. 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]