linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into SCHED_DEADLINE
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 13:12:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YKexvNwTbaLJd9Kl@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b7182444-1385-214f-4526-6e83be3d7f02@redhat.com>

On Friday 21 May 2021 at 15:00:42 (+0200), Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 5/21/21 12:37 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Interesting, thanks. Thinking about this some more, it strikes me that with
> > these silly asymmetric systems there could be an interesting additional
> > problem with hotplug and deadline tasks. Imagine the following sequence of
> > events:
> > 
> >   1. All online CPUs are 32-bit-capable
> >   2. sched_setattr() admits a 32-bit deadline task
> >   3. A 64-bit-only CPU is onlined
> 
> At the point 3, the global scheduler assumption is broken. For instance, in a
> system with four CPUs and five ready 32-bit-capable tasks, when the fifth CPU as
> added, the working conserving rule is violated because the five highest priority
> thread are not running (only four are) :-(.
> 
> So, at this point, for us to keep to the current behavior, the addition should
> be.. blocked? :-((
> 
> >   4. Some of the 32-bit-capable CPUs are offlined
> 
> Assuming that point 3 does not exist (i.e., all CPUs are 32-bit-capable). At
> this point, we will have an increase in the pressure on the 32-bit-capable CPUs.
> 
> This can also create bad effects for 64-bit tasks, as the "contended" 32-bit
> tasks will still be "queued" in a future time where they were supposed to be
> done (leaving time for the 64-bit tasks).
> 
> > I wonder if we can get into a situation where we think we have enough
> > bandwidth available, but in reality the 32-bit task is in trouble because
> > it can't make use of the 64-bit-only CPU.
> 
> I would have to think more, but there might be a case where this contended
> 32-bit tasks could cause deadline misses for the 64-bit too.
> 
> > If so, then it seems to me that admission control is really just
> > "best-effort" for 32-bit deadline tasks on these systems because it's based
> > on a snapshot in time of the available resources.
> 
> The admission test as is now is "best-effort" in the sense that it allows a
> workload higher than it could handle (it is necessary, but not sufficient AC).
> But it should not be considered "best-effort" because of violations in the
> working conserving property as a result of arbitrary affinities among tasks.
> Overall, we have been trying to close any "exception left" to this later case.
> 
> I know, it is a complex situation, I am just trying to illustrate our concerns,
> because, in the near future we might have a scheduler that handles arbitrary
> affinity correctly. But that might require us to stick to an AC. The AC is
> something precious for us.

FWIW, I agree with the above. As pointed out in another reply, this
looks like an existing bug and there is nothing specific to 32bits tasks
here.

But I don't think the existence of this bug should be a reason for
breaking AC even more than it is. So it still feels cleaner to block
execve() into 32bit if AC is on until we have proper support for
affinities in DL. And if folks want to use 32bit DL tasks on these
systems they'll have to disable AC, but at least they know what they are
getting ...

Thanks,
Quentin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-21 13:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-18  9:47 [PATCH v6 00/21] Add support for 32-bit tasks on asymmetric AArch32 systems Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 01/21] arm64: cpuinfo: Split AArch32 registers out into a separate struct Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:47   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 02/21] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:25   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-24 12:05     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-24 13:49       ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-21 10:41   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-24 12:09     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-24 13:46       ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-21 15:22   ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 20:21     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 03/21] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched " Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:47   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 04/21] arm64: Kill 32-bit applications scheduled on 64-bit-only CPUs Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:55   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 05/21] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applications in sysfs Will Deacon
2021-05-21 11:00   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 06/21] sched: Introduce task_cpu_possible_mask() to limit fallback rq selection Will Deacon
2021-05-21 16:03   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-24 12:17     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 07/21] cpuset: Don't use the cpu_possible_mask as a last resort for cgroup v1 Will Deacon
2021-05-21 17:39   ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 20:21     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 08/21] cpuset: Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() in guarantee_online_cpus() Will Deacon
2021-05-21 16:25   ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 21:09     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 09/21] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 10/21] sched: Introduce task_struct::user_cpus_ptr to track requested affinity Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 11/21] sched: Split the guts of sched_setaffinity() into a helper function Will Deacon
2021-05-21 16:41   ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 21:16     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 12/21] sched: Allow task CPU affinity to be restricted on asymmetric systems Will Deacon
2021-05-21 17:11   ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 21:43     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into SCHED_DEADLINE Will Deacon
2021-05-18 10:20   ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-18 10:28     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 10:48       ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-18 10:59         ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 13:19           ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-20  9:13             ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-20 10:16               ` Will Deacon
2021-05-20 10:33                 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-20 12:38                   ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-20 12:38                   ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-05-20 15:06                     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-20 16:00                       ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-05-20 17:55                         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-20 18:03                           ` Will Deacon
2021-05-21 11:26                             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-20 18:01                     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-21  5:25                       ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-21  8:15                         ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-21  8:39                           ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-21 10:37                             ` Will Deacon
2021-05-21 11:23                               ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-21 13:02                                 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-21 14:04                                   ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-21 17:47                                     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-21 13:00                               ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-05-21 13:12                                 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2021-05-24 20:47                                 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 14/21] freezer: Add frozen_or_skipped() helper function Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 15/21] sched: Defer wakeup in ttwu() for unschedulable frozen tasks Will Deacon
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 16/21] arm64: Implement task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon
2021-05-24 14:57   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 17/21] arm64: exec: Adjust affinity for compat tasks with mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:02   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 18/21] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:46   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-24 20:32     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-25  9:43       ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 19/21] arm64: Hook up cmdline parameter to allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:47   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 20/21] arm64: Remove logic to kill 32-bit tasks on 64-bit-only cores Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:47   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18  9:47 ` [PATCH v6 21/21] Documentation: arm64: describe asymmetric 32-bit support Will Deacon
2021-05-21 17:37   ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 21:46     ` Will Deacon
2021-05-24 16:22   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-21 17:45 ` [PATCH v6 00/21] Add support for 32-bit tasks on asymmetric AArch32 systems Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 22:08   ` Will Deacon

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=YKexvNwTbaLJd9Kl@google.com \
    --to=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into SCHED_DEADLINE' \
    /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

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).