Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix the nohz.next_balance update mess

[Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>]

Hi Vincent,
2017-02-06 16:07 GMT+08:00 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>:
> Hi Wanpeng
>
> On 5 February 2017 at 10:57, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
>>
>> The commit:
>>   c5afb6a87f2 ("sched/fair: Fix nohz.next_balance update")
>>
>> intends to update nohz.next_balance in two steps.
>>
>> 1) The ILB CPU utilizes next_balance variable in nohz_idle_balance()
>>    to gather the shortest next balance of other idle CPUs before
>>    updating nohz.next_balance.
>> 2) The ILB CPU updates the nohz.next_balance according to its own
>>    next_balance after load balance on behalf of other idle CPUs.
>>
>> However, there is a mess which breaks the original intention of the
>
> Have you got details of the mess that this generates ?
>
>> first step, every idle CPUs update nohz.next_balance during ILB CPU
>> on behalf of them to do load balance, and then the ILB CPU utilizes
>> next_balance variable in nohz_idle_balance() to gather the shortest
>> next balance of other idle CPUs before updating nohz.next_balance.
>>
>> This patch fixes it by don't update nohz.next_balance for other idle
>> CPUs when ILB CPU on behalf of them to do load balance.
>
> But how do you take into account the next balance of other idle CPUs ?

The step 1) which I describe above for your original commit takes it
into account. In addition, please refers to the comments which you
added(rebalance_domains()) in the original commit:

/*
 * If this CPU has been elected to perform the nohz idle
 * balance. Other idle CPUs have already rebalanced with
 * nohz_idle_balance() and nohz.next_balance has been
 * updated accordingly. This CPU is now running the idle load
 * balance for itself and we need to update the
 * nohz.next_balance accordingly.
 */

>
>>
>> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 274c747..83948a4 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -8750,7 +8750,8 @@ static void rebalance_domains(struct rq *rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
>>                  * balance for itself and we need to update the
>>                  * nohz.next_balance accordingly.
>>                  */
>> -               if ((idle == CPU_IDLE) && time_after(nohz.next_balance, rq->next_balance))
>> +               if ((idle == CPU_IDLE) && time_after(nohz.next_balance, rq->next_balance) &&
>> +                       !test_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(this_rq()->cpu)))
>>                         nohz.next_balance = rq->next_balance;
>
> With this change only the ILB CPU will update the nohz.next_balance
> but what about the next_balance of other idle CPUs ?
> The nohz.next_balance must be the next_balance of all idle CPU not only the ILB.
> So an idle CPU (other than the ILB) will have to wait for the ILB
> CPU's period evcen if it has shorter load balance period

Ditto.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li