cc: Sudeep Holla
On 2017-07-26 18:29, qiaozhou wrote:
On 2017年07月26日 22:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, qiaozhou wrote:
Cc'ed ARM folks.
<snip>
For that particular timer case we can clear base->running_timer w/o
the
lock held (see patch below), but this kind of
lock -> test -> unlock -> retry
loops are all over the place in the kernel, so this is going to hurt
you
sooner than later in some other place.
It's true. This is the way spinlock is used normally and widely in
kernel. I'll also ask ARM experts whether we can do something to avoid
or reduce the chance of such issue. ARMv8.1 has one single
instruction(ldadda) to replace the ldaxr/stxr loop. Hope it can
improve and reduce the chance.
I think we should have this discussion now - I brought this up earlier
[1]
and I promised a test case that I completely forgot about - but here it
is (attached). Essentially a Big CPU in an acquire-check-release loop
will have an unfair advantage over a little CPU concurrently attempting
to acquire the same lock, in spite of the ticket implementation. If the
Big
CPU needs the little CPU to make forward progress : livelock.
We've run into the same loop construct in other spots in the kernel and
the reason that a real symptom is so rare is that the retry-loop on the
'Big'
CPU needs to be interrupted just once by say an IRQ/FIQ and the
live-lock
is broken. If the entire retry loop is within an interrupt-disabled
critical
section then the odds of live-locking are much higher.
An example of the problem on a previous kernel is here [2]. Changes to
the
workqueue code since may have fixed this particular instance.
One solution was to use udelay(1) in such loops instead of cpu_relax(),
but
that's not very 'relaxing'. I'm not sure if there's something we could
do
within the ticket spin-lock implementation to deal with this.
Note that I ran my test on a 4.9 kernel so that didn't include any
spinlock
implementation changes since then. The test schedules two threads, one
on
a big CPU and one on a little CPU. The big CPU thread does the
lock/unlock/retry
loop for a full 1 second with interrupts disabled, while the little CPU
attempts
to acquire the same loop but enabling interrupts after every successful
lock+unlock.
With unfairness, the little CPU may take upto 1 second (or several
milliseconds at
the least) just to acquire the lock once. This varies depending on the
IPC difference
and frequencies of the big and little ARM64 CPUs:
Big cpu frequency | Little cpu frequency | Max time taken by little to
acquire lock
2GHz | 1.5GHz | 133 microseconds
2GHz | 300MHz | 734 milliseconds
Thanks,
Vikram
[1] - https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/17/934
[2] - https://goo.gl/uneFjt
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
From 51d6186b620a9e354a0d40af06aef1c1299ca223 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vikram Mulukutla <mark...@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:14:48 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] measure spinlock fairness across differently capable CPUs
How to run this test:
1) compile and boot
2) echo 1 > /sys/module/test/parameters/run_test
3) sleep 5
4) echo 0 > /sys/module/test/parameters/run_test
The test schedules two threads on two separate CPUs
and attempts to acquire the same spinlock from both
threads with a certain loop construct.
(it assumes cpu0 is 'Little' and cpu4 is 'Big'. This
can be changed in the code)
After running the test, check these counters:
cat /sys/module/test/parameters/big_time_us
cat /sys/module/test/parameters/little_time_us
If unfairness exists, little_time should be close to 1 second or
a fairly large millisecond value.
test.c has comments that explain why this is so.
Signed-off-by: Vikram Mulukutla <mark...@codeaurora.org>
---
kernel/sched/Makefile | 2 +-
kernel/sched/test.c | 204 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 kernel/sched/test.c
diff --git a/kernel/sched/Makefile b/kernel/sched/Makefile
index f6cce95..542a1c7 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/Makefile
+++ b/kernel/sched/Makefile
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ ifneq ($(CONFIG_SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER),y)
CFLAGS_core.o := $(PROFILING) -fno-omit-frame-pointer
endif
-obj-y += core.o loadavg.o clock.o cputime.o
+obj-y += core.o loadavg.o clock.o cputime.o test.o
obj-y += idle_task.o fair.o rt.o deadline.o stop_task.o
obj-y += wait.o swait.o completion.o idle.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpupri.o cpudeadline.o energy.o sched_avg.o
diff --git a/kernel/sched/test.c b/kernel/sched/test.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5dd3b0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/kernel/sched/test.c
@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+/* Copyright (c) 2014-2016, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
+ * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ *
+ * Big.Little spinlock unfairness test by Vikram Mulukutla
+ */
+
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/notifier.h>
+#include <linux/cpu.h>
+#include <linux/cpumask.h>
+#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
+#include <linux/kthread.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/sched/rt.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/delay.h>
+
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mylock);
+
+static int run_test;
+static int big_counter, little_counter;
+module_param(big_counter, int, 0644);
+module_param(little_counter, int, 0644);
+
+static int big_time_us, little_time_us;
+module_param(big_time_us, int, 0644);
+module_param(little_time_us, int, 0644);
+
+volatile int sync = 0;
+
+struct testdata {
+ int cpu;
+ int *counter;
+ int *time;
+};
+
+struct testdata littledata = {
+ .cpu = 0,
+ .counter = &little_counter,
+ .time = &little_time_us,
+};
+
+struct testdata bigdata = {
+ .cpu = 4,
+ .counter = &big_counter,
+ .time = &big_time_us,
+};
+
+/*
+ * This is the little CPU thread. It attempts to get the lock, disabling
+ * and enabling interrupts before and after the critical section, and
+ * checks how long it took to get the lock. Ideally this time
+ * should be reflective of just one iteration of the critical section of the
+ * big cpu thread but since this little CPU always loses the ticket strex,
+ * it ends up waiting a full second.
+ */
+static int __ref lockunlock(void *data)
+{
+ struct testdata *testdata = data;
+ u64 spin_start_time, spin_stop_time;
+
+ sched_setaffinity(current->pid, cpumask_of(testdata->cpu));
+
+ while (!sync);
+
+ local_irq_disable();
+ spin_lock(&mylock);
+ while (1) {
+ spin_unlock(&mylock);
+ local_irq_enable();
+
+ cpu_relax();
+
+ local_irq_disable();
+
+ spin_start_time = sched_clock();
+ spin_lock(&mylock);
+ spin_stop_time = sched_clock();
+
+ if (*testdata->time < ((spin_stop_time - spin_start_time)/NSEC_PER_USEC))
+ *testdata->time = (spin_stop_time - spin_start_time)/NSEC_PER_USEC;
+ *testdata->counter = *testdata->counter + 1;
+ if (!run_test)
+ break;
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&mylock);
+ local_irq_enable();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/*
+ * This is the big CPU thread. Ideally it should contend and have its ticket
+ * go in after the little CPU. However what ends up happening is
+ * - if it's running fast enough - this big CPU keeps winning the strex every
+ * time and is able to obtain and release the lock for a full second before it
+ * takes a break, at which point the little CPU wins (finally).
+ *
+ * Note that if there exists a loop construct such as this one in the kernel,
+ * and there is no 'break', then we have a potential livelock situation if
+ * this big CPU needs the little CPU to obtain the lock for the former to
+ * break out of the loop.
+ */
+static int __ref lockunlock_noirq(void *data)
+{
+ struct testdata *testdata = data;
+ u64 spin_start_time, spin_stop_time, time_since_start, test_start_time;
+ bool rollover;
+
+ sched_setaffinity(current->pid, cpumask_of(testdata->cpu));
+
+ while (!sync);
+
+ local_irq_disable();
+ spin_lock(&mylock);
+ test_start_time = sched_clock();
+ while (1) {
+ spin_unlock(&mylock);
+
+ time_since_start = sched_clock() - test_start_time;
+ rollover = time_since_start >= NSEC_PER_SEC;
+
+ /*
+ * We take a break after 1 second to allow watchdog etc. and
+ * potentially a user shell to work!
+ */
+ if (rollover) {
+ local_irq_enable();
+ test_start_time = sched_clock();
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Changing this cpu_relax to a udelay(1) will likely
+ * allow the little CPU enough cycles so it finally wins
+ * the strex battle.
+ */
+ cpu_relax();
+
+ if (rollover)
+ local_irq_disable();
+
+ spin_start_time = sched_clock();
+ spin_lock(&mylock);
+ spin_stop_time = sched_clock();
+
+ if (*testdata->time < ((spin_stop_time - spin_start_time)/NSEC_PER_USEC))
+ *testdata->time = (spin_stop_time - spin_start_time)/NSEC_PER_USEC;
+ *testdata->counter = *testdata->counter + 1;
+ if (!run_test)
+ break;
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&mylock);
+ local_irq_enable();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int runtest_param_set(const char *val, struct kernel_param *kp)
+{
+ int ret;
+ int old_val = run_test;
+
+ ret = param_set_int(val, kp);
+
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ /* If run_test is not zero or one, ignore. */
+ if (run_test >> 1) {
+ run_test = old_val;
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (run_test) {
+ sync = 0;
+
+ *littledata.time = 0;
+ *littledata.counter = 0;
+ *bigdata.time = 0;
+ *bigdata.counter = 0;
+
+ kthread_run(lockunlock, (void *) &littledata,
+ "test/%d", littledata.cpu);
+ kthread_run(lockunlock_noirq, (void *) &bigdata,
+ "test/%d", bigdata.cpu);
+ sync=1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+module_param_call(run_test, runtest_param_set, param_get_int,
+ &run_test, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR);
+
+
+
--
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
