Star64_linux/kernel/task_work.c
Jens Axboe 114518eb64 task_work: Use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available
If the arch supports TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL, then use that for TWA_SIGNAL as
it's more efficient than using the signal delivery method. This is
especially true on threaded applications, where ->sighand is shared across
threads, but it's also lighter weight on non-shared cases.

io_uring is a heavy consumer of TWA_SIGNAL based task_work. A test with
threads shows a nice improvement running an io_uring based echo server.

stock kernel:
0.01% <= 0.1 milliseconds
95.86% <= 0.2 milliseconds
98.27% <= 0.3 milliseconds
99.71% <= 0.4 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.5 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.7 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.8 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.9 milliseconds
100.00% <= 1.0 milliseconds
100.00% <= 1.1 milliseconds
100.00% <= 2 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
1378930.00 requests per second
~1600% CPU

1.38M requests/second, and all 16 CPUs are maxed out.

patched kernel:
0.01% <= 0.1 milliseconds
98.24% <= 0.2 milliseconds
99.47% <= 0.3 milliseconds
99.99% <= 0.4 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.5 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.7 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.8 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.9 milliseconds
100.00% <= 1.2 milliseconds
1666111.38 requests per second
~1450% CPU

1.67M requests/second, and we're no longer just hammering on the sighand
lock. The original reporter states:

"For 5.7.15 my benchmark achieves 1.6M qps and system cpu is at ~80%.
 for 5.7.16 or later it achieves only 1M qps and the system cpu is is
 at ~100%"

with the only difference there being that TWA_SIGNAL is used
unconditionally in 5.7.16, since it's required to be able to handle the
inability to run task_work if the application is waiting in the kernel
already on an event that needs task_work run to be satisfied. Also see
commit 0ba9c9edcd.

Reported-by: Roman Gershman <romger@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201026203230.386348-5-axboe@kernel.dk
2020-10-29 09:37:37 +01:00

163 lines
4.3 KiB
C

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/task_work.h>
#include <linux/tracehook.h>
static struct callback_head work_exited; /* all we need is ->next == NULL */
/*
* TWA_SIGNAL signaling - use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL, if available, as it's faster
* than TIF_SIGPENDING as there's no dependency on ->sighand. The latter is
* shared for threads, and can cause contention on sighand->lock. Even for
* the non-threaded case TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL is more efficient, as no locking
* or IRQ disabling is involved for notification (or running) purposes.
*/
static void task_work_notify_signal(struct task_struct *task)
{
#if defined(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
set_notify_signal(task);
#else
unsigned long flags;
/*
* Only grab the sighand lock if we don't already have some
* task_work pending. This pairs with the smp_store_mb()
* in get_signal(), see comment there.
*/
if (!(READ_ONCE(task->jobctl) & JOBCTL_TASK_WORK) &&
lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
task->jobctl |= JOBCTL_TASK_WORK;
signal_wake_up(task, 0);
unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
}
#endif
}
/**
* task_work_add - ask the @task to execute @work->func()
* @task: the task which should run the callback
* @work: the callback to run
* @notify: send the notification if true
*
* Queue @work for task_work_run() below and notify the @task if @notify.
* Fails if the @task is exiting/exited and thus it can't process this @work.
* Otherwise @work->func() will be called when the @task returns from kernel
* mode or exits.
*
* This is like the signal handler which runs in kernel mode, but it doesn't
* try to wake up the @task.
*
* Note: there is no ordering guarantee on works queued here.
*
* RETURNS:
* 0 if succeeds or -ESRCH.
*/
int
task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, int notify)
{
struct callback_head *head;
do {
head = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
if (unlikely(head == &work_exited))
return -ESRCH;
work->next = head;
} while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, head, work) != head);
switch (notify) {
case TWA_RESUME:
set_notify_resume(task);
break;
case TWA_SIGNAL:
task_work_notify_signal(task);
break;
}
return 0;
}
/**
* task_work_cancel - cancel a pending work added by task_work_add()
* @task: the task which should execute the work
* @func: identifies the work to remove
*
* Find the last queued pending work with ->func == @func and remove
* it from queue.
*
* RETURNS:
* The found work or NULL if not found.
*/
struct callback_head *
task_work_cancel(struct task_struct *task, task_work_func_t func)
{
struct callback_head **pprev = &task->task_works;
struct callback_head *work;
unsigned long flags;
if (likely(!task->task_works))
return NULL;
/*
* If cmpxchg() fails we continue without updating pprev.
* Either we raced with task_work_add() which added the
* new entry before this work, we will find it again. Or
* we raced with task_work_run(), *pprev == NULL/exited.
*/
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
while ((work = READ_ONCE(*pprev))) {
if (work->func != func)
pprev = &work->next;
else if (cmpxchg(pprev, work, work->next) == work)
break;
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
return work;
}
/**
* task_work_run - execute the works added by task_work_add()
*
* Flush the pending works. Should be used by the core kernel code.
* Called before the task returns to the user-mode or stops, or when
* it exits. In the latter case task_work_add() can no longer add the
* new work after task_work_run() returns.
*/
void task_work_run(void)
{
struct task_struct *task = current;
struct callback_head *work, *head, *next;
for (;;) {
/*
* work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
* work_exited unless the list is empty.
*/
do {
head = NULL;
work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
if (!work) {
if (task->flags & PF_EXITING)
head = &work_exited;
else
break;
}
} while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
if (!work)
break;
/*
* Synchronize with task_work_cancel(). It can not remove
* the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) must fail.
* But it can remove another entry from the ->next list.
*/
raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
do {
next = work->next;
work->func(work);
work = next;
cond_resched();
} while (work);
}
}