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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD17C433E6 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:02:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879E764F4E for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:02:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234806AbhBDIC5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 03:02:57 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56000 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230252AbhBDICv (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 03:02:51 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DE31C061573 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 00:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id u25so3223154lfc.2 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 00:02:10 -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=/1vBrzYRSOydy62JbnnY1AU4pLfSzMVHBk8pNhMz1FU=; b=MhfJsiu8y2zBlQa4Bu36Ifs2dMEOPLAT42vib1eQf2Ts6RHMv1QWL3AodKcbfoyD++ YTHS8NXZEXV7u6+cRjgPKe/S64yjTKjYHBBeUj5Hwwh2F9F8DQPt2m8YqR4z2KlG+Uoc r4Ddydlx/pcCVBu9hHqij6OzNfRyilTAFHiwGiyjkhPuxX3lLCy34lEn8SBpvqg5jPrx PSVkcpyzhWbyn+MWZrtoBWBdvjPZODTVrdKTxGG7/cQhyV6+dNNCGxDVx9lqw07hVfRN MrMXhaoPXxw7pk9TrNte08A9yt3EZrWmop+ufr5Wg/WR+8dliOjbR46NnL5GbslZgp18 D+3Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/1vBrzYRSOydy62JbnnY1AU4pLfSzMVHBk8pNhMz1FU=; b=HE9q3hsZB9RZ94IjFGm8+tayWtA0oGIuQ+0q+Id2wdg1X+FpRSIbhN83tkeC5L3gMG D0euIQr/AgvIOZKtjgNnF6O+GteJ0bkknEjz6H9I95HW7uyod2SWCbs4bvPD+RMaIHta CXc4TbNTXja69gxAM/Oo+2ZN/Um7zYmrySrVvCR1SAOfFnbca7Z9nSLTZ2NlkjkwY6eU o+vwY3UQpmDGpeRAUHBB0WIKm/pRSI1LSDS8r2lqUOnJL217/IMyCevMn3HmbAGh9bCp wZ+hQzdS79GR1+xbSY8FbLC5diRoOvAzL9VUdijq1+Hq9f9teH0LV7GN0TOditZHIVcP JMww== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vsLu3nPLj8pHwWN7hJIA1oG5i3trE5l2b0IrmSpTgq9lLES39 ToYMH+Z6vLPJ5N2Ag4NHrQdh4JD/pgUCRilY/FZrUw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwFOwYNBbHIUAiTVvFSfEsLfrWo5KgbEE8nPmgRiyTVtnxQlX8rIceGZB9SbCPNA7VO1FzFMUHLks+YST41vDU= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5b1a:: with SMTP id v26mr4298866lfn.286.1612425728959; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 00:02:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1608710968-31475-1-git-send-email-ultrachin@163.com> <1fefea2e.70bf.176f08d9fae.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> <61e22917.538b.176f56231f6.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> <38c1aeee.2d5f.176f9bb0cfb.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> <4e2f3ac4.2b66.17761bc6eb9.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> In-Reply-To: <4e2f3ac4.2b66.17761bc6eb9.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:01:57 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: pull tasks when CPU is about to run SCHED_IDLE tasks To: chin Cc: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , heddchen@tencent.com, =?UTF-8?B?eGlhb2dnY2hlbijpmYjlsI/lhYkp?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 08:56, chin wrote: > > > > > At 2021-01-13 16:30:14, "Vincent Guittot" wrote: > >On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 04:14, chin wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> At 2021-01-12 16:18:51, "Vincent Guittot" wrote: > >> >On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 07:59, chin wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> At 2021-01-11 19:04:19, "Vincent Guittot" wrote: > >> >> >On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 09:27, chin wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> At 2020-12-23 19:30:26, "Vincent Guittot" wrote: > >> >> >> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:32, wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> From: Chen Xiaoguang > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Before a CPU switches from running SCHED_NORMAL task to > >> >> >> >> SCHED_IDLE task, trying to pull SCHED_NORMAL tasks from other > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Could you explain more in detail why you only care about this use case > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >in particular and not the general case? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> We want to run online tasks using SCHED_NORMAL policy and offline tasks > >> >> >> using SCHED_IDLE policy. The online tasks and the offline tasks run in > >> >> >> the same computer in order to use the computer efficiently. > >> >> >> The online tasks are in sleep in most times but should responce soon once > >> >> >> wake up. The offline tasks are in low priority and will run only when no online > >> >> >> tasks. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The online tasks are more important than the offline tasks and are latency > >> >> >> sensitive we should make sure the online tasks preempt the offline tasks > >> >> >> as soon as possilbe while there are online tasks waiting to run. > >> >> >> So in our situation we hope the SCHED_NORMAL to run if has any. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Let's assume we have 2 CPUs, > >> >> >> In CPU1 we got 2 SCHED_NORMAL tasks. > >> >> >> in CPU2 we got 1 SCHED_NORMAL task and 2 SCHED_IDLE tasks. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> CPU1 CPU2 > >> >> >> curr rq1 curr rq2 > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> t0 |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> NORMAL exits or blocked > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> t1 |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> pick_next_task_fair > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ +----+ | +----+ > >> >> >> t2 |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| |IDLE| | |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ +----+ | +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> SCHED_IDLE running > >> >> >> t3 +------+ | +------+ +----+ | +----+ > >> >> >> |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| |IDLE| | |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ +----+ | +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> run_rebalance_domains > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> t4 |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> As we can see > >> >> >> t1: NORMAL task in CPU2 exits or blocked > >> >> >> t2: CPU2 pick_next_task_fair would pick a SCHED_IDLE to run while > >> >> >> another SCHED_NORMAL in rq1 is waiting. > >> >> >> t3: SCHED_IDLE run in CPU2 while a SCHED_NORMAL wait in CPU1. > >> >> >> t4: after a short time, periodic load_balance triggerd and pull > >> >> >> SCHED_NORMAL in rq1 to rq2, and SCHED_NORMAL likely preempts SCHED_IDLE. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> In this scenario, SCHED_IDLE is running while SCHED_NORMAL is waiting to run. > >> >> >> The latency of this SCHED_NORMAL will be high which is not acceptble. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Do a load_balance before running the SCHED_IDLE may fix this problem. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This patch works as below: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> CPU1 CPU2 > >> >> >> curr rq1 curr rq2 > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> t0 |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> NORMAL exits or blocked > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> t1 |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> t2 pick_next_task_fair (all se are SCHED_IDLE) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> newidle_balance > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> t3 |NORMAL| | |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE| > >> >> >> +------+ | +------+ | +----+ +----+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> t1: NORMAL task in CPU2 exits or blocked > >> >> >> t2: pick_next_task_fair check all se in rbtree are SCHED_IDLE and calls > >> >> >> newidle_balance who tries to pull a SCHED_NORMAL(if has). > >> >> >> t3: pick_next_task_fair would pick a SCHED_NORMAL to run instead of > >> >> >> SCHED_IDLE(likely). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> CPU by doing load_balance first. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Xiaoguang > >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen He > >> >> >> >> --- > >> >> >> >> kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 +++++ > >> >> >> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > >> >> >> >> index ae7ceba..0a26132 100644 > >> >> >> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > >> >> >> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > >> >> >> >> @@ -7004,6 +7004,11 @@ struct task_struct * > >> >> >> >> struct task_struct *p; > >> >> >> >> int new_tasks; > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> + if (prev && > >> >> >> >> + fair_policy(prev->policy) && > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Why do you need a prev and fair task ? You seem to target the special > >> >> >> >case of pick_next_task but in this case why not only testing rf!=null > >> >> >> > to make sure to not return immediately after jumping to the idle > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >label? > >> >> >> We just want to do load_balance only when CPU switches from SCHED_NORMAL > >> >> >> to SCHED_IDLE. > >> >> >> If not check prev, when the running tasks are all SCHED_IDLE, we would > >> >> >> do newidle_balance everytime in pick_next_task_fair, it makes no sense > >> >> >> and kind of wasting. > >> >> > > >> >> >I agree that calling newidle_balance every time pick_next_task_fair is > >> >> >called when there are only sched_idle tasks is useless. > >> >> >But you also have to take into account cases where there was another > >> >> >class of task running on the cpu like RT one. In your example above, > >> >> >if you replace the normal task on CPU2 by a RT task, you still want to > >> >> > >> >> >pick the normal task on CPU1 once RT task goes to sleep. > >> >> Sure, this case should be taken into account, we should also try to > >> >> pick normal task in this case. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Another point that you will have to consider the impact on > >> >> >rq->idle_stamp because newidle_balance is assumed to be called before > >> >> > >> >> >going idle which is not the case anymore with your use case > >> >> Yes. rq->idle_stamp should not be changed in this case. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Actually we want to pull a SCHED_NORMAL task (if possible) to run when a cpu is > >> >> about to run SCHED_IDLE task. But currently newidle_balance is not > >> >> designed for SCHED_IDLE so SCHED_IDLE can also be pulled which > >> >> is useless in our situation. > >> > > >> >newidle_balance will pull a sched_idle task only if there is an > >> >imbalance which is the right thing to do IMO to ensure fairness > >> >between sched_idle tasks. Being a sched_idle task doesn't mean that > >> >we should break the fairness > >> > > >> >> > >> >> So we plan to add a new function sched_idle_balance which only try to > >> >> pull SCHED_NORMAL tasks from the busiest cpu. And we will call > >> >> sched_idle_balance when the previous task is normal or RT and > >> >> hoping we can pull a SCHED_NORMAL task to run. > >> >> > >> >> Do you think it is ok to add a new sched_idle_balance? > >> > > >> >I don't see any reason why the scheduler should not pull a sched_idle > >> >task if there is an imbalance. That will happen anyway during the next > >> > >> >periodic load balance > >> OK. We should not pull the SCHED_IDLE tasks only in load_balance. > >> > >> > >> Do you think it make sense to do an extra load_balance when cpu is > >> about to run SCHED_IDLE task (switched from normal/RT)? > > > >I'm not sure to get your point here. > >Do you mean if a sched_idle task is picked to become the running task > >whereas there are runnable normal tasks ? This can happen if normal > >tasks are long running tasks. We should not in this case. The only > >case is when the running task, which is not a sched_idle task but a > >normal/rt/deadline one, goes to sleep and there are only sched_idle > >tasks enqueued. In this case and only in this case, we should trigger > >a load_balance to get a chance to pull a waiting normal task from > >another CPU. > > > >This means checking this state in pick_next_task_fair() and in balance_fair() > > We made another change would you please give some comments? > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index 04a3ce2..2357301 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -7029,6 +7029,10 @@ struct task_struct * > struct task_struct *p; > int new_tasks; > > + if (sched_idle_rq(rq) && prev && prev->state && > + prev->policy != SCHED_IDLE) This need a comment to explain what it want to achieve Why do you need to test prev->state ? > + goto idle; > + > again: > if (!sched_fair_runnable(rq)) > goto idle; > @@ -10571,7 +10575,8 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf) > * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we > * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time. > */ > - this_rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(this_rq); > + if (!rq->nr_running) > + this_rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(this_rq); > > /* > * Do not pull tasks towards !active CPUs... > > > > >> By doing this SCHED_NORMAL tasks waiting on other cpus would get > >> a chance to be pulled to this cpu and run, it is helpful to reduce the latency > >> of SCHED_NORMAL tasks. > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Also why not doing that for default case too ? i.e. balance_fair() ? > >> >> >> You are right, if you think this scenario makes sense, we will send a > >> >> >> refined patch soon :-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> + sched_idle_cpu(rq->cpu)) > >> >> >> >> + goto idle; > >> >> >> >> + > >> >> >> >> again: > >> >> >> >> if (!sched_fair_runnable(rq)) > >> >> >> >> goto idle; > >> >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> >> 1.8.3.1 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>