sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load calculations some more

Follow up on commit 556061b00 ("sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load[]
calculations") since while that fixed the busy case it regressed the
mostly idle case.

Add a callback from the nohz exit to also age the rq->cpu_load[]
array. This closes the hole where either there was no nohz load
balance pass during the nohz, or there was a 'significant' amount of
idle time between the last nohz balance and the nohz exit.

So we'll update unconditionally from the tick to not insert any
accidental 0 load periods while busy, and we try and catch up from
nohz idle balance and nohz exit. Both these are still prone to missing
a jiffy, but that has always been the case.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: pjt@google.com
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-kt0trz0apodbf84ucjfdbr1a@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 43 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 39eb601..75844a8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2517,25 +2517,32 @@ static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
 	sched_avg_update(this_rq);
 }
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
+/*
+ * There is no sane way to deal with nohz on smp when using jiffies because the
+ * cpu doing the jiffies update might drift wrt the cpu doing the jiffy reading
+ * causing off-by-one errors in observed deltas; {0,2} instead of {1,1}.
+ *
+ * Therefore we cannot use the delta approach from the regular tick since that
+ * would seriously skew the load calculation. However we'll make do for those
+ * updates happening while idle (nohz_idle_balance) or coming out of idle
+ * (tick_nohz_idle_exit).
+ *
+ * This means we might still be one tick off for nohz periods.
+ */
+
 /*
  * Called from nohz_idle_balance() to update the load ratings before doing the
  * idle balance.
  */
 void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
 {
-	unsigned long curr_jiffies = jiffies;
+	unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
 	unsigned long load = this_rq->load.weight;
 	unsigned long pending_updates;
 
 	/*
-	 * Bloody broken means of dealing with nohz, but better than nothing..
-	 * jiffies is updated by one cpu, another cpu can drift wrt the jiffy
-	 * update and see 0 difference the one time and 2 the next, even though
-	 * we ticked at roughtly the same rate.
-	 *
-	 * Hence we only use this from nohz_idle_balance() and skip this
-	 * nonsense when called from the scheduler_tick() since that's
-	 * guaranteed a stable rate.
+	 * bail if there's load or we're actually up-to-date.
 	 */
 	if (load || curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
 		return;
@@ -2547,12 +2554,38 @@ void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
 }
 
 /*
+ * Called from tick_nohz_idle_exit() -- try and fix up the ticks we missed.
+ */
+void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
+{
+	struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
+	unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
+	unsigned long pending_updates;
+
+	if (curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
+		return;
+
+	raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
+	pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
+	if (pending_updates) {
+		this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
+		/*
+		 * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be
+		 * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort.
+		 */
+		__update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates);
+	}
+	raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
+}
+#endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ */
+
+/*
  * Called from scheduler_tick()
  */
 static void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq)
 {
 	/*
-	 * See the mess in update_idle_cpu_load().
+	 * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz().
 	 */
 	this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
 	__update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->load.weight, 1);