All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
	Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: CFS group scheduler fairness broken starting from 2.6.29-rc1
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:09:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1248696557.6987.1615.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090723075735.GA18878@in.ibm.com>

On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 13:27 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Group scheduler fainess is broken since 2.6.29-rc1. git bisect led me
> to this commit:
> 
> commit ec4e0e2fe018992d980910db901637c814575914
> Author: Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>
> Date:   Tue Nov 18 22:41:57 2008 -0800
> 
>     sched: fix inconsistency when redistribute per-cpu tg->cfs_rq shares
>     
>     Impact: make load-balancing more consistent
>     
>     In the update_shares() path leading to tg_shares_up(), the calculation of
>     per-cpu cfs_rq shares is rather erratic even under moderate task wake up
>     rate.  The problem is that the per-cpu tg->cfs_rq load weight used in the
>     sd_rq_weight aggregation and actual redistribution of the cfs_rq->shares
>     are collected at different time.  Under moderate system load, we've seen
>     quite a bit of variation on the cfs_rq->shares and ultimately wildly
>     affects sched_entity's load weight.
>     
>     This patch caches the result of initial per-cpu load weight when doing the
>     sum calculation, and then pass it down to update_group_shares_cpu() for
>     redistributing per-cpu cfs_rq shares.  This allows consistent total cfs_rq
>     shares across all CPUs. It also simplifies the rounding and zero load
>     weight check.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>
>     Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Right, I think I spotted the bug.

Before this patch we would assign a non-0 share to empty cpu groups in
order to avoid starvation cases. But we could not account that non-0
share into the shares sum of the sd on the next run.

With this patch however we do. Which will create a skew which will only
be corrected on the top level domain when we reach there.

-               tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->shares = boost ? 0 : shares;

Is the logic that went missing.

/me goes frob a patch together.

How does the below work?

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
 kernel/sched.c |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -1523,13 +1523,18 @@ static void
 update_group_shares_cpu(struct task_group *tg, int cpu,
 			unsigned long sd_shares, unsigned long sd_rq_weight)
 {
-	unsigned long shares;
 	unsigned long rq_weight;
+	unsigned long shares;
+	int boost = 0;
 
 	if (!tg->se[cpu])
 		return;
 
 	rq_weight = tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->rq_weight;
+	if (!rq_weight) {
+		boost = 1;
+		rq_weight = NICE_0_LOAD;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 *           \Sum shares * rq_weight
@@ -1546,8 +1551,7 @@ update_group_shares_cpu(struct task_grou
 		unsigned long flags;
 
 		spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
-		tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->shares = shares;
-
+		tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->shares = boost ? 0 : shares;
 		__set_se_shares(tg->se[cpu], shares);
 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
 	}
@@ -1560,7 +1564,7 @@ update_group_shares_cpu(struct task_grou
  */
 static int tg_shares_up(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
 {
-	unsigned long weight, rq_weight = 0;
+	unsigned long weight, rq_weight = 0, eff_weight = 0;
 	unsigned long shares = 0;
 	struct sched_domain *sd = data;
 	int i;
@@ -1572,11 +1576,13 @@ static int tg_shares_up(struct task_grou
 		 * run here it will not get delayed by group starvation.
 		 */
 		weight = tg->cfs_rq[i]->load.weight;
+		tg->cfs_rq[i]->rq_weight = weight;
+		rq_weight += weight;
+
 		if (!weight)
 			weight = NICE_0_LOAD;
 
-		tg->cfs_rq[i]->rq_weight = weight;
-		rq_weight += weight;
+		eff_weight += weight;
 		shares += tg->cfs_rq[i]->shares;
 	}
 
@@ -1586,8 +1592,14 @@ static int tg_shares_up(struct task_grou
 	if (!sd->parent || !(sd->parent->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
 		shares = tg->shares;
 
-	for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sd))
-		update_group_shares_cpu(tg, i, shares, rq_weight);
+	for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sd)) {
+		unsigned long sd_rq_weight = rq_weight;
+
+		if (!tg->cfs_rq[i]->rq_weight)
+			sd_rq_weight = eff_weight;
+
+		update_group_shares_cpu(tg, i, shares, sd_rq_weight);
+	}
 
 	return 0;
 }



  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-07-27 12:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-23  7:57 CFS group scheduler fairness broken starting from 2.6.29-rc1 Bharata B Rao
2009-07-23 22:17 ` Ken Chen
2009-07-24  4:30   ` Bharata B Rao
2009-07-27 12:09 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-07-28  4:14   ` Bharata B Rao
2009-07-28  7:28     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-02 13:12   ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Fix cgroup smp fairness tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra

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=1248696557.6987.1615.camel@twins \
    --to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=kenchen@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=vatsa@in.ibm.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.