From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
Yabin Cui <yabinc@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/pi: Reweight fair_policy() tasks when inheriting prio
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 01:59:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403005930.1587032-1-qyousef@layalina.io> (raw)
For fair tasks inheriting the priority (nice) without reweighting is
a NOP as the task's share won't change.
This is visible when running with PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT where fair tasks
with low priority values are susceptible to starvation leading to PI
like impact on lock contention.
The logic in rt_mutex will reset these low priority fair tasks into nice
0, but without the additional reweight operation to actually update the
weights, it doesn't have the desired impact of boosting them to allow
them to run sooner/longer to release the lock.
Apply the reweight for fair_policy() tasks to achieve the desired boost
for those low nice values tasks. Note that boost here means resetting
their nice to 0; as this is what the current logic does for fair tasks.
Handling of idle_policy() requires more code refactoring and is not
handled yet. idle_policy() are treated specially and only run when the
CPU is idle and get a hardcoded low weight value. Changing weights won't
be enough without a promotion first to SCHED_OTHER.
Tested with a test program that creates three threads.
1. main thread that spanws high prio and low prio task and busy
loops
2. low priority thread that holds a pthread_mutex() with
PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT protocol. Runs at nice +10. Busy loops
after holding the lock.
3. high priority thread that holds a pthread_mutex() with
PTHREADPTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT, but made to start after the low
priority thread. Runs at nice 0. Should remain blocked by the
low priority thread.
All tasks are pinned to CPU0.
Without the patch I can see the low priority thread running only for
~10% of the time which is what expected without it being boosted.
With the patch the low priority thread runs for ~50% which is what
expected if it gets boosted to nice 0.
I modified the test program logic afterwards to ensure that after
releasing the lock the low priority thread goes back to running for 10%
of the time, and it does.
Reported-by: Yabin Cui <yabinc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0621e4ee31de..b90a541810da 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -7242,8 +7242,10 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, struct task_struct *pi_task)
} else {
if (dl_prio(oldprio))
p->dl.pi_se = &p->dl;
- if (rt_prio(oldprio))
+ else if (rt_prio(oldprio))
p->rt.timeout = 0;
+ else if (!task_has_idle_policy(p))
+ reweight_task(p, prio - MAX_RT_PRIO);
}
__setscheduler_prio(p, prio);
--
2.34.1
next reply other threads:[~2024-04-03 0:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-03 0:59 Qais Yousef [this message]
2024-04-03 13:11 ` [PATCH] sched/pi: Reweight fair_policy() tasks when inheriting prio Vincent Guittot
2024-04-03 13:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-04-03 13:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-04-04 22:18 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-04 22:05 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-05 12:15 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-04-05 17:16 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-07 12:27 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-08 7:16 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-04-08 19:51 ` John Stultz
2024-04-09 6:19 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-09 12:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-04-10 6:59 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-10 9:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-04-10 15:47 ` Qais Yousef
2024-05-14 16:07 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-10 17:30 ` John Stultz
2024-04-10 18:15 ` Qais Yousef
2024-04-08 7:14 ` Vincent Guittot
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=20240403005930.1587032-1-qyousef@layalina.io \
--to=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=yabinc@google.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).