Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Add WQ_SCHED_FIFO

From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@google.com>
Cc: Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@google.com>,
	Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Add WQ_SCHED_FIFO
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:11:23 -1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8HI+42TxxlJxT6D@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230113210703.62107-1-nhuck@google.com>

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 01:07:02PM -0800, Nathan Huckleberry wrote:
> Add a WQ flag that allows workqueues to use SCHED_FIFO with the least
> imporant RT priority.  This can reduce scheduler latency for IO
> post-processing when the CPU is under load without impacting other RT
> workloads.  This has been shown to improve app startup time on Android
> [1].
> 
> Scheduler latency affects several drivers as evidenced by [1], [2], [3],
> [4].  Some of these drivers have moved post-processing into IRQ context.
> However, this can cause latency spikes for real-time threads and jitter
> related jank on Android.  Using a workqueue with SCHED_FIFO improves
> scheduler latency without causing latency problems for RT threads.
> 
> [1]:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-erofs/20230106073502.4017276-1-dhavale@google.com/
> [2]:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20220802192437.1895492-1-daeho43@gmail.com/
> [3]:
> https://lore.kernel.org/dm-devel/20220722093823.4158756-4-nhuck@google.com/
> [4]:
> https://lore.kernel.org/dm-crypt/20200706173731.3734-1-ignat@cloudflare.com/
> 
> This change has been tested on dm-verity with the following fio config:
> 
> [global]
> time_based
> runtime=120
> 
> [do-verify]
> ioengine=sync
> filename=/dev/testing
> rw=randread
> direct=1
> 
> [burn_8x90%_qsort]
> ioengine=cpuio
> cpuload=90
> numjobs=8
> cpumode=qsort
> 
> Before:
> clat (usec): min=13, max=23882, avg=29.56, stdev=113.29 READ:
> bw=122MiB/s (128MB/s), 122MiB/s-122MiB/s (128MB/s-128MB/s), io=14.3GiB
> (15.3GB), run=120001-120001msec
> 
> After:
> clat (usec): min=13, max=23137, avg=19.96, stdev=105.71 READ:
> bw=180MiB/s (189MB/s), 180MiB/s-180MiB/s (189MB/s-189MB/s), io=21.1GiB
> (22.7GB), run=120012-120012msec

Given that its use case mostly intersects with WQ_HIGHPRI, would it make
more sense to add a switch to alter its behavior instead? I don't really
like the idea of pushing the decision between WQ_HIGHPRI and WQ_SCHED_FIFO
to each user.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun