From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:59:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221102165922.GA31833@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221026224449.214839-1-joshdon@google.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1915 bytes --]
Hello.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 03:44:49PM -0700, Josh Don <joshdon@google.com> wrote:
> To fix this, we can instead unthrottle cfs_rq's asynchronously via a
> CSD. Each cpu is responsible for unthrottling itself, thus sharding the
> total work more fairly across the system, and avoiding hard lockups.
FIFO behavior of the cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq is quite important to
ensure fairness of throttling (historically when it FIFO wasn't honored,
it caused some cfs_rq starving issues).
Despite its name, distribute_cfs_runtime() doesn't distribute the
runtime, the time is pulled inside assign_cfs_rq_runtime() (but that's
already on target cpu).
Currently, it's all synchronized under cfs_b->lock but with your change,
throttled cfs_rq would be dissolved among cpus that'd run concurrently
(assign_cfs_rq_runtime() still takes cfs_b->lock but it won't be
necessarily in the unthrottling order).
Have you observed any such fairness issues? [1][2]
> +static inline void __unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> [...]
> + if (rq == this_rq()) {
> + unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> + return;
> + }
It was pointed out to me that generic_exec_single() does something
similar.
Wouldn't the flow bandwidth control code be simpler relying on that?
Also, can a particular cfs_rq be on both cfs_b->throttled_csd_list and
cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq lists at any moment?
I wonder if having a single list_head node in cfs_rq would be feasible
(and hence enforcing this constraint in data).
Regards,
Michal
[1] I'm not familiar with IPIs, just to illustrate the concurrency: the
fairness could be skewed towards CPUs that are on same "NUMA" node
as the timer callback if closer CPUs received them sooner.
[2] Currently, I don't think it's a prohibitive issue because with my
reasoning even the current code relies on cfs_b->lock being a queued
spinlock to ensure the FIFO of cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-02 16:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-26 22:44 [PATCH v2] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth Josh Don
2022-10-31 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-31 21:22 ` Josh Don
2022-10-31 21:50 ` Tejun Heo
2022-10-31 23:15 ` Josh Don
2022-10-31 23:53 ` Tejun Heo
2022-11-01 1:01 ` Josh Don
2022-11-01 1:45 ` Tejun Heo
2022-11-01 19:11 ` Josh Don
2022-11-01 19:15 ` Tejun Heo
2022-11-01 20:56 ` Josh Don
2022-11-01 21:49 ` Tejun Heo
2022-11-01 21:59 ` Josh Don
2022-11-01 22:38 ` Tejun Heo
2022-11-02 17:10 ` Michal Koutný
2022-11-02 17:18 ` Tejun Heo
2022-10-31 21:56 ` Benjamin Segall
2022-11-02 8:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-11-11 0:14 ` Josh Don
2022-11-02 16:59 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2022-11-03 0:10 ` Josh Don
2022-11-03 10:11 ` Michal Koutný
2022-11-16 3:01 ` Josh Don
2022-11-16 9:57 ` Michal Koutný
2022-11-16 21:45 ` Josh Don
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=20221102165922.GA31833@blackbody.suse.cz \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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).