Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: adjust SCHED_IDLE interactions

[Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 04:00, Josh Don <joshdon@google.com> wrote:
>
> This patch makes some behavioral changes when SCHED_IDLE entities are
> competing with non SCHED_IDLE entities.
>
> 1) Ignore min_granularity for determining the sched_slide of a
> SCHED_IDLE entity when it is competing with a non SCHED_IDLE entity.
> This reduces the latency of getting a non SCHED_IDLE entity back on cpu,
> at the expense of increased context switch frequency of SCHED_IDLE
> entities.
>
> In steady state competition between SCHED_IDLE/non-SCHED_IDLE,
> preemption is driven by the tick, so SCHED_IDLE min_granularity is
> approximately bounded on the low end by the tick HZ.
>
> Example: on a machine with HZ=1000, spawned two threads, one of which is
> SCHED_IDLE, and affined to one cpu. Without this patch, the SCHED_IDLE
> thread runs for 4ms then waits for 1.4s. With this patch, it runs for
> 1ms and waits 340ms (as it round-robins with the other thread).
>
> The benefit of this change is to reduce the round-robin latency for non
> SCHED_IDLE entities when competing with a SCHED_IDLE entity.
>
> 2) Don't give sleeper credit to SCHED_IDLE entities when they wake onto
> a cfs_rq with non SCHED_IDLE entities. As a result, newly woken
> SCHED_IDLE entities will take longer to preempt non SCHED_IDLE entities.
>
> Example: spawned four threads affined to one cpu, one of which was set
> to SCHED_IDLE. Without this patch, wakeup latency for the SCHED_IDLE
> thread was ~1-2ms, with the patch the wakeup latency was ~10ms.
>
> The benefit of this change is to make it less likely that a newly woken
> SCHED_IDLE entity will preempt a short-running non SCHED_IDLE entity
> before it blocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index a7feae1cb0f0..24b2c6c057e6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -674,6 +674,7 @@ static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long nr_running)
>  static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
>  {
>         unsigned int nr_running = cfs_rq->nr_running;
> +       struct sched_entity *init_se = se;
>         u64 slice;
>
>         if (sched_feat(ALT_PERIOD))
> @@ -684,12 +685,13 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
>         for_each_sched_entity(se) {
>                 struct load_weight *load;
>                 struct load_weight lw;
> +               struct cfs_rq *qcfs_rq;
>
> -               cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> -               load = &cfs_rq->load;
> +               qcfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> +               load = &qcfs_rq->load;
>
>                 if (unlikely(!se->on_rq)) {
> -                       lw = cfs_rq->load;
> +                       lw = qcfs_rq->load;
>
>                         update_load_add(&lw, se->load.weight);
>                         load = &lw;
> @@ -697,8 +699,18 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
>                 slice = __calc_delta(slice, se->load.weight, load);
>         }
>
> -       if (sched_feat(BASE_SLICE))
> -               slice = max(slice, (u64)w);
> +       if (sched_feat(BASE_SLICE)) {
> +               /*
> +                * SCHED_IDLE entities are not subject to min_granularity if
> +                * they are competing with non SCHED_IDLE entities. As a result,
> +                * non SCHED_IDLE entities will have reduced latency to get back
> +                * on cpu, at the cost of increased context switch frequency of
> +                * SCHED_IDLE entities.
> +                */

Ensuring that the entity will have a minimum runtime has been added to
ensure that we let enough time to move forward.
If you exclude sched_idle entities from this min runtime, the
sched_slice of an idle_entity will be really small.
I don't have details of your example above but I can imagine that it's
a 16 cpus system which means a sysctl_sched_min_granularity=3.75ms
which explains the 4ms running time of an idle entity
For a 16 cpus system, the sched_slice of an idle_entity in your
example in the cover letter is: 6*(1+log2(16))*3/1027=87us. Of course
this become even worse with more threads and cgroups or thread with
ncie prio -19

This value is then used to set the next hrtimer event in SCHED_HRTICK
and 87us is too small to make any progress

The 1ms of your test comes from the tick which could be a good
candidate for a min value or the
normalized_sysctl_sched_min_granularity which has the advantage of not
increasing with number of CPU

> +               if (!se_is_idle(init_se) ||
> +                   cfs_rq->h_nr_running == cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running)
> +                       slice = max(slice, (u64)sysctl_sched_min_granularity);
> +       }
>
>         return slice;
>  }
> @@ -4216,7 +4228,15 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
>                 if (sched_feat(GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS))
>                         thresh >>= 1;
>
> -               vruntime -= thresh;
> +               /*
> +                * Don't give sleep credit to a SCHED_IDLE entity if we're
> +                * placing it onto a cfs_rq with non SCHED_IDLE entities.
> +                */
> +               if (!se_is_idle(se) ||
> +                   cfs_rq->h_nr_running == cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running)

Can't this condition above create unfairness between idle entities ?
idle thread 1 wake up while normal thread is running
normal thread thread sleeps immediately after
idle thread 2 wakes up just after and gets some credits compared to the 1st one.

> +                       vruntime -= thresh;
> +               else
> +                       vruntime += 1;
>         }
>
>         /* ensure we never gain time by being placed backwards. */
> --
> 2.32.0.554.ge1b32706d8-goog
>