From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Vineeth Remanan Pillai" <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
"Nishanth Aravamudan" <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
"Julien Desfossez" <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Greg Kerr" <kerrnel@google.com>, "Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>,
"Aubrey Li" <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
"Valentin Schneider" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
"Pawan Gupta" <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Joel Fernandes" <joelaf@google.com>,
"Joel Fernandes" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH updated v2] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 11:42:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200516034230.GA72980@aaronlu-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200514130248.GD2940@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:02:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 08:34:57PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > With this said, I realized a workaround for the issue described above:
> > when the core went from 'compatible mode'(step 1-3) to 'incompatible
> > mode'(step 4), reset all root level sched entities' vruntime to be the
> > same as the core wide min_vruntime. After all, the core is transforming
> > from two runqueue mode to single runqueue mode... I think this can solve
> > the issue to some extent but I may miss other scenarios.
>
> A little something like so, this syncs min_vruntime when we switch to
> single queue mode. This is very much SMT2 only, I got my head in twist
> when thikning about more siblings, I'll have to try again later.
Thanks a lot for the patch, I now see that "there is no need to adjust
every se's vruntime". :-)
> This very much retains the horrible approximation of S we always do.
>
> Also, it is _completely_ untested...
I've been testing it.
One problem below.
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4293,10 +4281,11 @@ static struct task_struct *
> pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> {
> struct task_struct *next, *max = NULL;
> + int old_active = 0, new_active = 0;
> const struct sched_class *class;
> const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
> - int i, j, cpu;
> bool need_sync = false;
> + int i, j, cpu;
>
> cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> @@ -4349,10 +4338,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
> rq_i->core_pick = NULL;
>
> if (rq_i->core_forceidle) {
> + // XXX is_idle_task(rq_i->curr) && rq_i->nr_running ??
> need_sync = true;
> rq_i->core_forceidle = false;
> }
>
> + if (!is_idle_task(rq_i->curr))
> + old_active++;
> +
> if (i != cpu)
> update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> }
> @@ -4463,8 +4456,12 @@ next_class:;
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!rq_i->core_pick);
>
> - if (is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running)
> - rq_i->core_forceidle = true;
> + if (is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick)) {
> + if (rq_i->nr_running)
> + rq_i->core_forceidle = true;
> + } else {
> + new_active++;
> + }
>
> if (i == cpu)
> continue;
> @@ -4476,6 +4473,16 @@ next_class:;
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!cookie_match(next, rq_i->core_pick));
> }
>
> + /* XXX SMT2 only */
> + if (new_active == 1 && old_active > 1) {
There is a case when incompatible task appears but we failed to 'drop
into single-rq mode' per the above condition check. The TLDR is: when
there is a task that sits on the sibling rq with the same cookie as
'max', new_active will be 2 instead of 1 and that would cause us missing
the chance to do a sync of core min_vruntime.
This is how it happens:
1) 2 tasks of the same cgroup with different weight running on 2 siblings,
say cg0_A with weight 1024 bound at cpu0 and cg0_B with weight 2 bound
at cpu1(assume cpu0 and cpu1 are siblings);
2) Since new_active == 2, we didn't trigger min_vruntime sync. For
simplicity, let's assume both siblings' root cfs_rq's min_vruntime and
core_vruntime are all at 0 now;
3) let the two tasks run a while;
4) a new task cg1_C of another cgroup gets queued on cpu1. Since cpu1's
existing task has a very small weight, its cfs_rq's min_vruntime can
be much larger than cpu0's cfs_rq min_vruntime. So cg1_C's vruntime is
much larger than cg0_A's and the 'max' of the core wide task
selection goes to cg0_A;
5) Now I suppose we should drop into single-rq mode and by doing a sync
of core min_vruntime, cg1_C's turn shall come. But the problem is, our
current selection logic prefer not to waste CPU time so after decides
cg0_A as the 'max', the sibling will also do a cookie_pick() and
get cg0_B to run. This is where problem asises: new_active is 2
instead of the expected 1.
6) Due to we didn't do the sync of core min_vruntime, the newly queued
cg1_C shall wait a long time before cg0_A's vruntime catches up.
One naive way of precisely determine when to drop into single-rq mode is
to track how many tasks of a particular tag exists and use that to
decide if the core is in compatible mode(all tasks belong to the same
cgroup, IOW, have the same core_cookie) or not and act accordingly,
except that: does this sound too complex and inefficient?...
> + /*
> + * We just dropped into single-rq mode, increment the sequence
> + * count to trigger the vruntime sync.
> + */
> + rq->core->core_sync_seq++;
> + }
> + rq->core->core_active = new_active;
> +
> done:
> set_next_task(rq, next);
> return next;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-16 3:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-04 16:59 [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 01/13] sched: Wrap rq::lock access vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 02/13] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock vpillai
2020-04-01 11:42 ` [PATCH] sched/arm64: store cpu topology before notify_cpu_starting Cheng Jian
2020-04-01 13:23 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-06 8:00 ` chengjian (D)
2020-04-09 9:59 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-04-09 10:32 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-09 11:08 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-04-09 17:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-04-10 13:49 ` chengjian (D)
2020-04-14 11:36 ` [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-14 21:35 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-15 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-14 14:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 04/13] sched/fair: Add a few assertions vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 05/13] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 06/13] sched: Update core scheduler queue when taking cpu online/offline vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 07/13] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling vpillai
2020-04-14 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 23:32 ` Tim Chen
2020-04-17 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 3:39 ` Chen Yu
2020-04-16 19:59 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-17 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-19 15:31 ` Chen Yu
2020-05-21 23:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 23:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-22 2:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-22 3:44 ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-22 20:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 08/13] sched/fair: wrapper for cfs_rq->min_vruntime vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 09/13] sched/fair: core wide vruntime comparison vpillai
2020-04-14 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-15 3:34 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-15 4:07 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-15 21:24 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-17 9:40 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-20 8:07 ` [PATCH updated] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison Aaron Lu
2020-04-20 22:26 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-21 2:51 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-24 14:24 ` [PATCH updated v2] " Aaron Lu
2020-05-06 14:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-08 8:44 ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-08 9:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-08 12:34 ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-14 13:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-14 22:51 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-15 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 10:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 14:24 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-16 3:42 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2020-05-22 9:40 ` Aaron Lu
2020-06-08 1:41 ` Ning, Hongyu
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 10/13] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer vpillai
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 11/13] sched: migration changes for core scheduling vpillai
2020-06-12 13:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-12 21:32 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-13 2:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-13 18:59 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-15 2:05 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 12/13] sched: cgroup tagging interface " vpillai
2020-06-26 15:06 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 13/13] sched: Debug bits vpillai
2020-03-04 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 Tim Chen
2020-03-04 17:42 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-14 14:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-15 16:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-04-17 11:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-17 12:35 ` Alexander Graf
2020-04-17 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-18 2:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-09 14:35 ` Dario Faggioli
[not found] ` <38805656-2e2f-222a-c083-692f4b113313@linux.intel.com>
2020-05-09 3:39 ` Ning, Hongyu
2020-05-14 20:51 ` FW: " Gruza, Agata
2020-05-10 23:46 ` [PATCH RFC] Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-11 13:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-11 14:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-20 22:26 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-21 4:09 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-05-21 13:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 8:51 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-21 13:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 20:20 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-22 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-22 21:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-24 14:00 ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 14:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-28 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-28 18:17 ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 18:34 ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 18:23 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-21 20:40 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 21:58 ` Jesse Barnes
2020-05-22 16:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-20 22:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2] Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-20 22:48 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Use sched-RCU in core-scheduling balancing logic Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-21 22:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-22 1:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-25 20:12 ` [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-26 1:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-26 14:36 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-26 15:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-26 15:12 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-27 16:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-30 14:11 ` Phil Auld
2020-06-29 12:33 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-06-29 19:41 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200516034230.GA72980@aaronlu-desktop \
--to=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).