From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80398C433F5 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 15:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348065AbiAGPVq (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2022 10:21:46 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56426 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229845AbiAGPVp (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2022 10:21:45 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C97FEC061574 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id o12so16750550lfk.1 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2022 07:21:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wsnNnqLRk2DeOCWScnn1Pm3CpK6cDVdCs0ftWvruziQ=; b=Vg2kY1PBhUduq5sYd4+5cjsZYaMaG6kUbS+UGNrkTiBgAWIw1FGauQB60Rnx/pesBF PKioJbabCTtXfQ6X+xtzVwGuNkp8qnivOnY8vR1RjT5o1oF+oyfpZ/ztz3kEUIDrRv4B TwJzxTxLX3G6ygpe/5E8Y8xHc3n9KAfuJ8xNWwr6dlKYpYoZMNt+pNJqC1LXl1ih5sd3 pLlOaKcfi2dBs+UIH4hujwf+wtGSBOmwWIshXCf5e6yEVENq2ywjEgT8e3U1Qzfal565 stRq7oEigT4APBRlF1POhw3+pLXgqOGL2jRkBahcdzute+Ir6FdbmGtjkRzhID3Plog7 +pAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wsnNnqLRk2DeOCWScnn1Pm3CpK6cDVdCs0ftWvruziQ=; b=eHhzVs/vdRVKA0aLkvgjW3VR13mZKVBVUZMI7yhKHz3z+NvkJ440zKXBR2eMn1Squg i9ORYQLSF9n5AsU3a5wd05laabV8NRYFBHhF2LSU3XsC0DztcXi+yC5hmng7ywYbMfaH k9YfqQ2Ugft8gi0c2MLxpKZqc0e4foVcjRTKCP/JxpayuFXKYxQca6Fps9nMywZwWBye 6PuLFvxPYy6TJtPnrUk6Ocbcpy8wqhOqcfUzCRUb9kI2ydgkZH9g+W8YzM18gK/XyAwV LB8GtDXakpTkkXh+M7VBo5a8KoJiycnlC+OeKVcIAmM0SBsasMx4IPQLHOHJNT7t9o4y Balg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532IGcYrbU6jTe43eWj3dmTcZAjtkzo57FK7XCj7eXlLLxJ4vB6m NfXk+GXDSxRzZ1l+dhn+R4DiL/ZvdqbNWZKOh+LrFA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxX4x2q91spAcuNsk7qgPnaGTycEdF/qh5OzOhXbkx2xGYCIMKfP0fXVzfthfE6fog34OWyqIl1MpVpeXA7Wu8= X-Received: by 2002:a19:760b:: with SMTP id c11mr54012833lff.430.1641568902926; Fri, 07 Jan 2022 07:21:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211222093802.22357-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20211222093802.22357-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <9e526482-905c-e759-8aa6-1ff84bb5b2a3@arm.com> <8f39d837-2589-4f7b-5232-1ed134fb1ad7@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Vincent Guittot Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:21:31 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/pelt: Don't sync hardly util_sum with uti_avg To: Dietmar Eggemann Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rickyiu@google.com, odin@uged.al, sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com, naresh.kamboju@linaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 12:43, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > On 05/01/2022 14:57, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 14:15, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >> > >> On 04/01/2022 14:42, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 12:47, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 22/12/2021 10:38, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>>> I still wonder whether the regression only comes from the changes in > >>>> update_cfs_rq_load_avg(), introduced by 1c35b07e6d39. > >>>> And could be fixed only by this part of the patch-set (A): > >>> > >>> I have been able to trigger the warning even with (A) though It took > >>> much more time. > >>> And I have been able to catch wrong situations (with additional > >>> traces) in the 3 places A, B and C > >> > >> OK. By wrong situation you mean '_sum < _avg * MIN_DIVIDER' ? > > > > not only. > > also util_sum == 0 but util_avg !=0 in different places although these > > Ah OK, I saw this one as part of '_sum < _avg * MIN_DIVIDER'. > > > situation didn't trigger sched_warn because some other sync happened > > before the periodic call of __update_blocked_fair > > or if nr_running == 1 and and task's util_avg/sum > cfs' util_avg/sum > > just before removing the task > > I see. > > >>>> @@ -3677,15 +3706,22 @@ update_cfs_rq_load_avg(u64 now, struct cfs_rq > >>>> *cfs_rq) > >>>> > >>>> r = removed_load; > >>>> sub_positive(&sa->load_avg, r); > >>>> - sa->load_sum = sa->load_avg * divider; > >>>> + sub_positive(&sa->load_sum, r * divider); > >>>> + sa->load_sum = max_t(u32, sa->load_sum, sa->load_avg * MIN_DIVIDER); > >>>> > >>>> r = removed_util; > >>>> sub_positive(&sa->util_avg, r); > >>>> - sa->util_sum = sa->util_avg * divider; > >>>> + sub_positive(&sa->util_sum, r * divider); > >>>> + sa->util_sum = max_t(u32, sa->util_sum, sa->util_avg * MIN_DIVIDER); > >>>> > >>>> r = removed_runnable; > >>>> sub_positive(&sa->runnable_avg, r); > >>>> - sa->runnable_sum = sa->runnable_avg * divider; > >>>> + sub_positive(&sa->runnable_sum, r * divider); > >>>> + sa->runnable_sum = max_t(u32, sa->runnable_sum, > >>>> + sa->runnable_avg * MIN_DIVIDER); > >>>> > >>>> i.e. w/o changing update_tg_cfs_X() (and > >>>> detach_entity_load_avg()/dequeue_load_avg()). > >>>> > >>>> update_load_avg() > >>>> update_cfs_rq_load_avg() <--- > >>>> propagate_entity_load_avg() > >>>> update_tg_cfs_X() <--- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I didn't see the SCHED_WARN_ON() [cfs_rq_is_decayed()] when looping on > >>>> hackbench in several different sched group levels on > >>>> [Hikey620 (Arm64, 8 CPUs, SMP, 4 taskgroups: A/B C/D E/F G/H), >12h uptime]. > >>> > >>> IIRC, it was with hikey960 with cgroup v1 > >>> As a side note, I never trigger the problem with dragonboard845 and cgroup v2 > >> > >> OK, just started a test on hikey960 cgroupv1. Let's see if I can catch it. > > Still no sign of the issue (hikey960, cgroupv1, 4 taskgroups: A/B C/D > E/F G/H > 45h uptime > > >>>>> @@ -3780,7 +3799,11 @@ static void detach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *s > >>>>> > >>>>> dequeue_load_avg(cfs_rq, se); > >>>>> sub_positive(&cfs_rq->avg.util_avg, se->avg.util_avg); > >>>>> - cfs_rq->avg.util_sum = cfs_rq->avg.util_avg * divider; > >>>>> + sub_positive(&cfs_rq->avg.util_sum, se->avg.util_sum); > >>>>> + /* See update_tg_cfs_util() */ > >>>>> + cfs_rq->avg.util_sum = max_t(u32, cfs_rq->avg.util_sum, > >>>>> + cfs_rq->avg.util_avg * MIN_DIVIDER); > >>>>> + > >>>> > >>>> Maybe add a: > >>>> > >>>> Fixes: fcf6631f3736 ("sched/pelt: Ensure that *_sum is always synced > >>>> with *_avg") > >>> > >>> I spent time thinking about adding fixes tag. There is no crash/warn > >>> so far so should we propagate it back in LTS for better performance ? > >> > >> Not sure I understand. What do you mean by 'should we propagate it back > >> in LTS'? > > > > Sorry I had any stables in mind and not only LTS. > > > > Some of the changes done in PELT signal propagation that replace > > subtracting util_sum by using util_avg * divider instead, are related > > to other problems with sched group hierarchy and > > throttling/unthrottling. I'm not 100% confident that using fixes tag > > to backport this on stables doesn't need to backport more patches on > > other areas in order to not resurrect old problems. So I wonder if > > it's worth backporting this on stables > > OK, I see. So only 1c35b07e6d39 (i.e. the util _sum/_avg change in > update_cfs_rq_load_avg() (1)) caused the CPU frequency regression. That > was the reason why I initially suggested to split the patch-set > differently. But you said that you saw the issue also when (1) is fixed. Ok, I think that we were not speaking about the same setup. I wrongly read that you were saying that sa->util_sum = max_t(u32, sa->util_sum, sa->util_avg * MIN_DIVIDER); was only needed in update_cfs_rq_load_avg() but not in the other places. But what you said is that we only need the below to fix the perf regression raised by rick ? r = removed_util; sub_positive(&sa->util_avg, r); - sa->util_sum = sa->util_avg * divider; + sub_positive(&sa->util_sum, r * divider); + sa->util_sum = max_t(u32, sa->util_sum, sa->util_avg * MIN_DIVIDER); The WARN that I mentioned in my previous email was about not adding the max_t in all 3 places. I rerun some test today and I triggered the WARN after a detach without the max_t line. I can probably isolate the code above in a dedicated patch for the regression raised by Rick and we could consider adding a fixes tag; I will run more tests with only this part during the weekend. That being said, we need to stay consistent in all 3 places where we move or propagate some *_avg. In particular, using "sa->util_sum = sa->util_avg * divider" has the drawback of filtering the contribution not already accounted for in util_avg and the impact is much larger than expected. It means that although fixing only update_cfs_rq_load_avg() seems enough for rick's case, some other cases could be impacted by the 2 other places and we need to fixed them now that we have a better view of the root cause