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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID, USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 61759ECE563 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:48:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040AB2086E for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:48:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="kYQvA61K" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 040AB2086E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728253AbeIQPPe (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:15:34 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:57650 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725757AbeIQPPe (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:15:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=06mVUdqy5UfXhscG7NiOdqeAwgjiipJLzpNlSMklW30=; b=kYQvA61KBF6Esh/CvIkqj1gwmu I6kuDO2u3LidUZ0kR3s4W86LMyNxf+GHxVw1DSkDSu42kIAgDbwVQaCfjg0xz5JnAEYxNaBlzxlHG tn/yAhSezxpUW0z8cFMpVnmy2AAxQJ2J3rfchmoa8jkbPggl1TR6gIvnRMj8Exnin1q7ldH+IJWdO Qr2g4a3w/cMENnxMz5KCBCDz9WYrF8VukxllfTtksmkWeR44jVbn89ejzzg0vtHMYoSh0mUCTvmwQ Q1PzTyvIJ/ZM5wpt8psNUnPm9zf7yeZTH/7aUglhUUjuSpGFFS3ySJxndPHNQfTS7aI09xyarwIOd mN43U8Jw==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1g1q98-0003hk-PI; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:48:47 +0000 Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A3AF02058A20A; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:48:44 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Jan =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=2E_Sch=F6nherr?= Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Turner , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen , Tim Chen , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Task group cleanups and optimizations (was: Re: [RFC 00/60] Coscheduling for Linux) Message-ID: <20180917094844.GR24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180907214047.26914-1-jschoenh@amazon.de> <20180914111251.GC24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1d86f497-9fef-0b19-50d6-d46ef1c0bffa@amazon.de> <282230fe-b8de-01f9-c19b-6070717ba5f8@amazon.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <282230fe-b8de-01f9-c19b-6070717ba5f8@amazon.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 10:48:20AM +0200, Jan H. Schönherr wrote: > On 09/14/2018 06:25 PM, Jan H. Schönherr wrote: > > On 09/14/2018 01:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > >> There are known scalability problems with the existing cgroup muck; you > >> just made things a ton worse. The existing cgroup overhead is > >> significant, you also made that many times worse. > >> > >> The cgroup stuff needs cleanups and optimization, not this. > > [...] > > > With respect to the need of cleanups and optimizations: I agree, that > > task groups are a bit messy. For example, here's my current wish list > > off the top of my head: > > > > a) lazy scheduler operations; for example: when dequeuing a task, don't bother > > walking up the task group hierarchy to dequeue all the SEs -- do it lazily > > when encountering an empty CFS RQ during picking when we hold the lock anyway. That sounds like it will wreck the runnable_weight accounting. Although, if, as you write below, we do away with the hierarchical runqueues, that isn't in fact needed anymore I think. Still, even without runnable_weight, I suspect we need the 'runnable' state, even for the other accounting. > > b) ability to move CFS RQs between CPUs: someone changed the affinity of > > a cpuset? No problem, just attach the runqueue with all the tasks elsewhere. > > No need to touch each and every task. Can't do that, tasks might have individual constraints that are tighter than the cpuset. Also, changing affinities isn't really a hot path, so who cares. > > c) light-weight task groups: don't allocate a runqueue for every CPU in the > > system, when it is known that tasks in the task group will only ever run > > on at most two CPUs, or so. (And while there is of course a use case for > > VMs in this, another class of use cases are auxiliary tasks, see eg, [1-5].) I have yet to go over your earlier email; but no. The scheduler is very much per-cpu. And as I mentioned earlier, CFS as is doesn't work right if you share the runqueue between multiple CPUs (and 'fixing' that is non trivial). > > Is this the level of optimizations, you're thinking about? Or do you want > > to throw away the whole nested CFS RQ experience in the code? > > I guess, it would be possible to flatten the task group hierarchy, that is usually > created when nesting cgroups. That is, enqueue task group SEs always within the > root task group. > > That should take away much of the (runtime-)overhead, no? Yes, Rik was going to look at trying this. Put all the tasks in the root rq and adjust the vtime calculations. Facebook is seeing significant overhead from cpu-cgroup and has to disable it because of that on at least part of their setup IIUC. > The calculation of shares would need to be a different kind of complex than it is > now. But that might be manageable. That is the hope; indeed. We'll still need to create the hierarchy for accounting purposes, but it can be a smaller/simpler data structure. So the weight computation would be the normalized product of the parents etc.. and since PELT only updates the values on ~1ms scale, we can keep a cache of the product -- that is, we don't have to recompute that product and walk the hierarchy all the time either. > CFS bandwidth control would also need to change significantly as we would now > have to dequeue/enqueue nested cgroups below a throttled/unthrottled hierarchy. > Unless *those* task groups don't participate in this flattening. Right, so the whole bandwidth thing becomes a pain; the simplest solution is to detect the throttle at task-pick time, dequeue and try again. But that is indeed quite horrible. I'm not quite sure how this will play out. Anyway, if we pull off this flattening feat, then you can no longer use the hierarchy for this co-scheduling stuff. Now, let me go read your earlier email and reply to that (in parts).