On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 11:01:37PM +0800, Yuan ZhaoXiong wrote:
> On a 128 cores AMD machine, there are 8 cores in nohz_full mode, and
> the others are used for housekeeping. When many housekeeping cpus are
> in idle state, we can observe huge time burn in the loop for searching
> nearest busy housekeeper cpu by ftrace.
>
> 9) | get_nohz_timer_target() {
> 9) | housekeeping_test_cpu() {
> 9) 0.390 us | housekeeping_get_mask.part.1();
> 9) 0.561 us | }
> 9) 0.090 us | __rcu_read_lock();
> 9) 0.090 us | housekeeping_cpumask();
> 9) 0.521 us | housekeeping_cpumask();
> 9) 0.140 us | housekeeping_cpumask();
>
> ...
>
> 9) 0.500 us | housekeeping_cpumask();
> 9) | housekeeping_any_cpu() {
> 9) 0.090 us | housekeeping_get_mask.part.1();
> 9) 0.100 us | sched_numa_find_closest();
> 9) 0.491 us | }
> 9) 0.100 us | __rcu_read_unlock();
> 9) + 76.163 us | }
>
> for_each_cpu_and() is a micro function, so in get_nohz_timer_target()
> function the
> for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd),
> housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_TIMER))
> equals to below:
> for (i = -1; i = cpumask_next_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd),
> housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_TIMER)), i < nr_cpu_ids;)
> That will cause that housekeeping_cpumask() will be invoked many times.
> The housekeeping_cpumask() function returns a const value, so it is
> unnecessary to invoke it every time. This patch can minimize the worst
> searching time from ~76us to ~16us in my testing.
>
> Similarly, the find_new_ilb() function has the same problem.
Would it not make sense to mark housekeeping_cpumask() __pure instead?
