Scheduler raises a SCHED_SOFTIRQ to trigger a load balancing event on
from the IPI handler on the idle CPU. Since the softirq can be raised
from flush_smp_call_function_queue(), it can end up waking up ksoftirqd,
which can give an illusion of the idle CPU being busy when doing an idle
load balancing.
Adding a trace_printk() in nohz_csd_func() at the spot of raising
SCHED_SOFTIRQ and enabling trace events for sched_switch, sched_wakeup,
and softirq_entry (for SCHED_SOFTIRQ vector alone) helps observing the
current behavior:
<idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ from nohz_csd_func
<idle>-0 [000] dN.4.: sched_wakeup: comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=16 prio=120 target_cpu=000
<idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
<idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_exit: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
<idle>-0 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=swapper/0 prev_pid=0 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=ksoftirqd/0 next_pid=16 next_prio=120
ksoftirqd/0-16 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=ksoftirqd/0 prev_pid=16 prev_prio=120 prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/0 next_pid=0 next_prio=120
...
ksoftirqd is woken up before the idle thread calls
do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush() which can make the runqueue appear
busy and prevent the idle load balancer from pulling task from an
overloaded runqueue towards itself[1].
Since the softirq raised is guranteed to be serviced in irq_exit() or
via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(), set SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking
the need to wakeup ksoftirq for idle load balancing.
Following are the observations with the changes when enabling the same
set of events:
<idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ for nohz_idle_balance
<idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: softirq_raise: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
<idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
No unnecessary ksoftirqd wakeups are seen from idle task's context to
service the softirq.
Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fcf823f-195e-6c9a-eac3-25f870cb35ac@inria.fr/ [1]
Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
---
v3..v4:
o New patch based on Sebastian's suggestion.
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index aaf99c0bcb49..2ee3621d6e7e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1244,7 +1244,18 @@ static void nohz_csd_func(void *info)
rq->idle_balance = idle_cpu(cpu);
if (rq->idle_balance) {
rq->nohz_idle_balance = flags;
- raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
+
+ /*
+ * Don't wakeup ksoftirqd when raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ
+ * since the idle load balancer may mistake wakeup of
+ * ksoftirqd as a genuine task wakeup and bail out from
+ * load balancing early. Since it is guaranteed that
+ * pending softirqs will be handled soon, either on
+ * irq_exit() or via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(),
+ * raise SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking the need to
+ * wakeup ksoftirqd.
+ */
+ __raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
}
}
--
2.34.1On 2024-10-30 07:15:57 [+0000], K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Scheduler raises a SCHED_SOFTIRQ to trigger a load balancing event on
> from the IPI handler on the idle CPU. Since the softirq can be raised
> from flush_smp_call_function_queue(), it can end up waking up ksoftirqd,
> which can give an illusion of the idle CPU being busy when doing an idle
> load balancing.
>
> Adding a trace_printk() in nohz_csd_func() at the spot of raising
> SCHED_SOFTIRQ and enabling trace events for sched_switch, sched_wakeup,
> and softirq_entry (for SCHED_SOFTIRQ vector alone) helps observing the
> current behavior:
>
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ from nohz_csd_func
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.4.: sched_wakeup: comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=16 prio=120 target_cpu=000
> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_exit: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> <idle>-0 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=swapper/0 prev_pid=0 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=ksoftirqd/0 next_pid=16 next_prio=120
> ksoftirqd/0-16 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=ksoftirqd/0 prev_pid=16 prev_prio=120 prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/0 next_pid=0 next_prio=120
> ...
>
> ksoftirqd is woken up before the idle thread calls
> do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush() which can make the runqueue appear
> busy and prevent the idle load balancer from pulling task from an
> overloaded runqueue towards itself[1].
>
> Since the softirq raised is guranteed to be serviced in irq_exit() or
> via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(), set SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking
> the need to wakeup ksoftirq for idle load balancing.
>
> Following are the observations with the changes when enabling the same
> set of events:
>
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ for nohz_idle_balance
> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: softirq_raise: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
>
> No unnecessary ksoftirqd wakeups are seen from idle task's context to
> service the softirq.
| Use __raise_softirq_irqoff() to raise the softirq. The SMP function call
| is always invoked on the requested CPU in an interrupt handler. It is
| guaranteed that soft interrupts are handled at the end.
You could extend it
| If the SMP function is invoked from an idle CPU via
| flush_smp_call_function_queue() then the HARD-IRQ flag is not set and
| raise_softirq_irqoff() wakes needlessly ksoftirqd because soft
| interrupts are handled before ksoftirqd get on the CPU.
This on its own is a reasonable optimisation. A different question would
be if flush_smp_call_function_queue() should pretend to be in-IRQ like a
regular IPI but…
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
> Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fcf823f-195e-6c9a-eac3-25f870cb35ac@inria.fr/ [1]
> Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> ---
> v3..v4:
>
> o New patch based on Sebastian's suggestion.
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index aaf99c0bcb49..2ee3621d6e7e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1244,7 +1244,18 @@ static void nohz_csd_func(void *info)
> rq->idle_balance = idle_cpu(cpu);
> if (rq->idle_balance) {
> rq->nohz_idle_balance = flags;
> - raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
> +
> + /*
> + * Don't wakeup ksoftirqd when raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ
> + * since the idle load balancer may mistake wakeup of
> + * ksoftirqd as a genuine task wakeup and bail out from
> + * load balancing early. Since it is guaranteed that
> + * pending softirqs will be handled soon, either on
> + * irq_exit() or via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(),
> + * raise SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking the need to
> + * wakeup ksoftirqd.
> + */
/*
* This is always invoked from an interrupt handler, simply raise the
* softirq.
*/
should be enough IMHO. But *I* would even skip that, since it is
obvious.
> + __raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
> }
> }
Sebastian
Hello Sebastian,
On 11/8/2024 5:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-10-30 07:15:57 [+0000], K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>> Scheduler raises a SCHED_SOFTIRQ to trigger a load balancing event on
>> from the IPI handler on the idle CPU. Since the softirq can be raised
>> from flush_smp_call_function_queue(), it can end up waking up ksoftirqd,
>> which can give an illusion of the idle CPU being busy when doing an idle
>> load balancing.
>>
>> Adding a trace_printk() in nohz_csd_func() at the spot of raising
>> SCHED_SOFTIRQ and enabling trace events for sched_switch, sched_wakeup,
>> and softirq_entry (for SCHED_SOFTIRQ vector alone) helps observing the
>> current behavior:
>>
>> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ from nohz_csd_func
>> <idle>-0 [000] dN.4.: sched_wakeup: comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=16 prio=120 target_cpu=000
>> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
>> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_exit: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
>> <idle>-0 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=swapper/0 prev_pid=0 prev_prio=120 prev_state=R ==> next_comm=ksoftirqd/0 next_pid=16 next_prio=120
>> ksoftirqd/0-16 [000] d..2.: sched_switch: prev_comm=ksoftirqd/0 prev_pid=16 prev_prio=120 prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/0 next_pid=0 next_prio=120
>> ...
>>
>> ksoftirqd is woken up before the idle thread calls
>> do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush() which can make the runqueue appear
>> busy and prevent the idle load balancer from pulling task from an
>> overloaded runqueue towards itself[1].
>>
>> Since the softirq raised is guranteed to be serviced in irq_exit() or
>> via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(), set SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking
>> the need to wakeup ksoftirq for idle load balancing.
>>
>> Following are the observations with the changes when enabling the same
>> set of events:
>>
>> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: nohz_csd_func: Raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ for nohz_idle_balance
>> <idle>-0 [000] dN.1.: softirq_raise: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
>> <idle>-0 [000] .Ns1.: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
>>
>> No unnecessary ksoftirqd wakeups are seen from idle task's context to
>> service the softirq.
>
> | Use __raise_softirq_irqoff() to raise the softirq. The SMP function call
> | is always invoked on the requested CPU in an interrupt handler. It is
> | guaranteed that soft interrupts are handled at the end.
>
> You could extend it
>
> | If the SMP function is invoked from an idle CPU via
> | flush_smp_call_function_queue() then the HARD-IRQ flag is not set and
> | raise_softirq_irqoff() wakes needlessly ksoftirqd because soft
> | interrupts are handled before ksoftirqd get on the CPU.
I'll reword the log as suggested in the next version.
>
> This on its own is a reasonable optimisation. A different question would
> be if flush_smp_call_function_queue() should pretend to be in-IRQ like a
> regular IPI but…
I thought about it initially but seeing optimizations and checks around
"hardirq_stack" and checks to reuse it in certain context led be to
believe that there may be more nuances that I do not have a full picture
of, and I went ahead with this simpler solution.
>
> Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Thank you for the review!
>
>> Fixes: b2a02fc43a1f ("smp: Optimize send_call_function_single_ipi()")
>> Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fcf823f-195e-6c9a-eac3-25f870cb35ac@inria.fr/ [1]
>> Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
>> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
>> ---
>> v3..v4:
>>
>> o New patch based on Sebastian's suggestion.
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index aaf99c0bcb49..2ee3621d6e7e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -1244,7 +1244,18 @@ static void nohz_csd_func(void *info)
>> rq->idle_balance = idle_cpu(cpu);
>> if (rq->idle_balance) {
>> rq->nohz_idle_balance = flags;
>> - raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Don't wakeup ksoftirqd when raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ
>> + * since the idle load balancer may mistake wakeup of
>> + * ksoftirqd as a genuine task wakeup and bail out from
>> + * load balancing early. Since it is guaranteed that
>> + * pending softirqs will be handled soon, either on
>> + * irq_exit() or via do_softirq_post_smp_call_flush(),
>> + * raise SCHED_SOFTIRQ without checking the need to
>> + * wakeup ksoftirqd.
>> + */
>
> /*
> * This is always invoked from an interrupt handler, simply raise the
> * softirq.
> */
>
> should be enough IMHO. But *I* would even skip that, since it is
> obvious.
I'll remove it in the subsequent version. I'll wait a bit before sending
it to see if folks have any suggestion on the parallel thread regarding
handling SCHED_SOFTIRQ from ksoftirqd.
>
>> + __raise_softirq_irqoff(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
>> }
>> }
>
> Sebastian
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.