On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:33:04AM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
After commit f5d39b020809 ("freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic"),
tasks that are in TASK_FREEZABLE state and end up getting frozen are
TASK_FREEZABLE state and what? Pls check once.
always woken up. Prior to that commit, tasks could ask freezer to
consider them "frozen enough" via freezer_do_not_conut(). As described
in Peter's commit, the reason for this change is to prevent these tasks
from being woken before SMP is back. The commit introduced a
TASK_FREEZABLE state which allows freezer to immediately mark the task
as TASK_FROZEN without waking up the task. On the thaw path, the task is
woken up even if the task didn't need to wake up and goes back to its
TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTIBLE state. Although these tasks are capable of
handling of the wakeup, we can observe a power/perf impact from the
extra wakeup.
We observed on Android many tasks wait in the TASK_FREEZABLE state
(particularly due to many of them being binder clients). We observed
nearly 4x the number of tasks and a corresponding (almost) linear increase in
latency and power consumption when thawing the system. The latency
increased from ~15ms to ~50ms.
Save the state of TASK_FREEZABLE tasks and restore it after thawing the
task without waking the task up. If the task received a wake up for the
saved_state before thawing, then the task is still woken upon thawing.
Re-use saved_state from RT sleeping spinlocks because freezer doesn't
consider TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT freezable.
Reported-by: Prakash Viswalingam <quic_prakashv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
For testing purposes, I use these commands can help see how many tasks were
woken during thawing:
1. Setup:
mkdir /sys/kernel/tracing/instances/freezer
cd /sys/kernel/tracing/instances/freezer
echo 0 > tracing_on ; echo > trace
echo power:suspend_resume > set_event
echo 'enable_event:sched:sched_wakeup if action == \"thaw_processes\" && start == 1' > events/power/suspend_resume/trigger
echo 'traceoff if action == \"thaw_processes\" && start == 0' > events/power/suspend_resume/trigger
echo 1 > tracing_on
2. Let kernel go to suspend
3. After kernel's back up:
cat /sys/kernel/tracing/instances/freezer/trace | grep sched_wakeup | grep -o "pid=[0-9]*" | sort -u | wc -l
---
include/linux/sched.h | 4 ++--
kernel/freezer.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
kernel/sched/core.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index eed5d65b8d1f..e4ade5a18df2 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -746,8 +746,8 @@ struct task_struct {
#endif
unsigned int __state;
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
- /* saved state for "spinlock sleepers" */
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FREEZER)
+ /* saved state for "spinlock sleepers" and freezer */
unsigned int saved_state;
#endif
diff --git a/kernel/freezer.c b/kernel/freezer.c
index 4fad0e6fca64..6222cbfd97ab 100644
--- a/kernel/freezer.c
+++ b/kernel/freezer.c
@@ -71,7 +71,11 @@ bool __refrigerator(bool check_kthr_stop)
for (;;) {
bool freeze;
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
set_current_state(TASK_FROZEN);
+ /* unstale saved_state so that __thaw_task() will wake us up */
+ current->saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
spin_lock_irq(&freezer_lock);
freeze = freezing(current) && !(check_kthr_stop && kthread_should_stop());
@@ -129,6 +133,7 @@ static int __set_task_frozen(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
WARN_ON_ONCE(debug_locks && p->lockdep_depth);
#endif
+ p->saved_state = p->__state;
WRITE_ONCE(p->__state, TASK_FROZEN);
return TASK_FROZEN;
}
@@ -174,10 +179,16 @@ bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
* state in p->jobctl. If either of them got a wakeup that was missed because
* TASK_FROZEN, then their canonical state reflects that and the below will
* refuse to restore the special state and instead issue the wakeup.
+ *
+ * Otherwise, restore the saved_state before the task entered freezer. For
+ * typical tasks in the __refrigerator(), saved_state == 0 so nothing happens
+ * here. For tasks which were TASK_NORMAL | TASK_FREEZABLE, their initial state
+ * is returned unless they got an expected wakeup. Then they will be woken up as
+ * TASK_FROZEN back in __thaw_task().
*/
Thanks for the detailed comment. The change looks good to me.
static int __set_task_special(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
{
- unsigned int state = 0;
+ unsigned int state = p->saved_state;
if (p->jobctl & JOBCTL_TRACED)
state = TASK_TRACED;
@@ -188,7 +199,7 @@ static int __set_task_special(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
if (state)
WRITE_ONCE(p->__state, state);
- return state;
+ return state & ~TASK_FROZEN;
}
void __thaw_task(struct task_struct *p)
{
...
if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags2)) {
/* TASK_FROZEN -> TASK_{STOPPED,TRACED} */
bool ret = task_call_func(p, __set_task_special, NULL);
unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags2);
if (ret)
goto unlock;
}
wake_up_state(p, TASK_FROZEN);
unlock:
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&freezer_lock, flags);
}
The comment there about task change needs update. I feel the "ret"
should be renamed approriately to indicate whether wakeup is needed
or not.
Now that we have saved_state capturing the previous and any state change
while task is frozen, can that be used and remove the job control and
associated locking here? for ex: if saved_state is running, we need to
wakeup otherwise, simply restore the __state from saved_state.
void __thaw_task(struct task_struct *p)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index a68d1276bab0..815d955764a5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3992,13 +3992,17 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
* The caller holds p::pi_lock if p != current or has preemption
* disabled when p == current.
*
- * The rules of PREEMPT_RT saved_state:
+ * The rules of saved_state:
*
* The related locking code always holds p::pi_lock when updating
* p::saved_state, which means the code is fully serialized in both cases.
*
- * The lock wait and lock wakeups happen via TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT. No other
- * bits set. This allows to distinguish all wakeup scenarios.
+ * For PREEMPT_RT, the lock wait and lock wakeups happen via TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT.
+ * No other bits set. This allows to distinguish all wakeup scenarios.
+ *
+ * For FREEZER, the wakeup happens via TASK_FROZEN. No other bits set. This
+ * allows us to prevent early wakeup of tasks before they can be run on
+ * asymmetric ISA architectures (eg ARMv9).
*/
static __always_inline
bool ttwu_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int *success)
@@ -4013,13 +4017,14 @@ bool ttwu_state_match(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int *success)
return true;
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FREEZER)
/*
* Saved state preserves the task state across blocking on
- * an RT lock. If the state matches, set p::saved_state to
- * TASK_RUNNING, but do not wake the task because it waits
- * for a lock wakeup. Also indicate success because from
- * the regular waker's point of view this has succeeded.
+ * an RT lock or TASK_FREEZABLE tasks. If the state matches,
+ * set p::saved_state to TASK_RUNNING, but do not wake the task
+ * because it waits for a lock wakeup or __thaw_task(). Also
+ * indicate success because from the regular waker's point of
+ * view this has succeeded.
*
* After acquiring the lock the task will restore p::__state
* from p::saved_state which ensures that the regular
---
base-commit: 6995e2de6891c724bfeb2db33d7b87775f913ad1
change-id: 20230817-avoid-spurious-freezer-wakeups-9f8619680b3a
Your patch seems based on v6.4. You might want to resend the patch on
v6.5 to take the below commit into account.
1c06918788e8a ("sched: Consider task_struct::saved_state in
wait_task_inactive()")
