From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To: Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] sched/rt: Better manage pushing unfit tasks on wakeup
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:02:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200226160247.iqvdakiqbakk2llz@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200225035505.GI28029@codeaurora.org>
On 02/25/20 09:25, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > I haven't been staring at this code for as long as you, but since we have
> > logic at wakeup to do a push, I think we need something here anyway for unfit
> > tasks.
> >
> > Fixing select_task_rq_rt() to better balance tasks will help a lot in general,
> > but if that was enough already then why do we need to consider a push at the
> > wakeup at all then?
> >
> > AFAIU, in SMP the whole push-pull mechanism is racy and we introduce redundancy
> > at taking the decision on various points to ensure we minimize this racy nature
> > of SMP systems. Anything could have happened between the time we called
> > select_task_rq_rt() and the wakeup, so we double check again before we finally
> > go and run. That's how I interpret it.
> >
> > I am open to hear about other alternatives first anyway. Your help has been
> > much appreciated so far.
> >
>
> The search inside find_lowest_rq() happens without any locks so I believe it
> is expected to have races like this. In fact there is a comment in the code
> saying "This test is optimistic, if we get it wrong the load-balancer
> will have to sort it out" in select_task_rq_rt(). However, the push logic
> as of today works only for overloaded case. In that sense, your patch fixes
> this race for b.L systems. At the same time, I feel like tracking nonfit tasks
> just to fix this race seems to be too much. I will leave this to Steve and
> others to take a decision.
I do think without this tasks can end up on the wrong CPU longer than they
should. Keep in mind that if a task is boosted to run on a big core, it still
have to compete with non-boosted tasks who can run on a any cpu. So this
opportunistic push might be necessary.
For 5.6 though, I'll send an updated series that removes the fitness check from
task_woken_rt() && switched_to_rt() and carry on with this discussion for 5.7.
>
> I thought of suggesting to remove the below check from select_task_rq_rt()
>
> p->prio < cpu_rq(target)->rt.highest_prio.curr
>
> which would then make the target CPU overloaded and the push logic would
> spread the tasks. That works for a b.L system too. However there seems to
> be a very good reason for doing this. see
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/539137/
>
> The fact that a CPU is part of lowest_mask but running a higher prio RT
> task means there is a race. Should we retry one more time to see if we find
> another CPU?
Isn't this what I did in v1?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200214163949.27850-4-qais.yousef@arm.com/
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-26 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-23 18:39 [PATCH v2 0/6] RT Capacity Awareness Fixes & Improvements Qais Yousef
2020-02-23 18:39 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] sched/rt: cpupri_find: implement fallback mechanism for !fit case Qais Yousef
2020-02-23 18:39 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] sched/rt: Re-instate old behavior in select_task_rq_rt Qais Yousef
2020-02-25 15:21 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-02-26 11:34 ` Qais Yousef
2020-02-23 18:39 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] sched/rt: Optimize cpupri_find on non-heterogenous systems Qais Yousef
2020-02-23 18:39 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] sched/rt: allow pulling unfitting task Qais Yousef
2020-02-23 18:40 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] sched/rt: Better manage pushing unfit tasks on wakeup Qais Yousef
2020-02-24 6:10 ` Pavan Kondeti
2020-02-24 12:11 ` Qais Yousef
2020-02-24 16:04 ` Pavan Kondeti
2020-02-24 17:41 ` Qais Yousef
2020-02-25 3:55 ` Pavan Kondeti
2020-02-26 16:02 ` Qais Yousef [this message]
2020-02-27 3:36 ` Pavan Kondeti
2020-02-27 10:29 ` Qais Yousef
2020-02-23 18:40 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] sched/rt: Remove unnecessary assignment in inc/dec_rt_migration Qais Yousef
2020-02-23 23:16 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-02-24 12:31 ` Qais Yousef
2020-02-24 13:03 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-02-24 13:47 ` Qais Yousef
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=20200226160247.iqvdakiqbakk2llz@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).