From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ankit Jain <ankitja@vmware.com>
Cc: yury.norov@gmail.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, qyousef@layalina.io, pjt@google.com,
joshdon@google.com, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, namit@vmware.com,
amakhalov@vmware.com, srinidhir@vmware.com,
vsirnapalli@vmware.com, vbrahmajosyula@vmware.com,
akaher@vmware.com, srivatsa@csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] cpumask: Randomly distribute the tasks within affinity mask
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:46:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231011114642.GA36521@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231011105329.GA17066@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 12:53:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 12:49:25PM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
> > commit 46a87b3851f0 ("sched/core: Distribute tasks within affinity masks")
> > and commit 14e292f8d453 ("sched,rt: Use cpumask_any*_distribute()")
> > introduced the logic to distribute the tasks at initial wakeup on cpus
> > where load balancing works poorly or disabled at all (isolated cpus).
> >
> > There are cases in which the distribution of tasks
> > that are spawned on isolcpus does not happen properly.
> > In production deployment, initial wakeup of tasks spawn from
> > housekeeping cpus to isolcpus[nohz_full cpu] happens on first cpu
> > within isolcpus range instead of distributed across isolcpus.
> >
> > Usage of distribute_cpu_mask_prev from one processes group,
> > will clobber previous value of another or other groups and vice-versa.
> >
> > When housekeeping cpus spawn multiple child tasks to wakeup on
> > isolcpus[nohz_full cpu], using cpusets.cpus/sched_setaffinity(),
> > distribution is currently performed based on per-cpu
> > distribute_cpu_mask_prev counter.
> > At the same time, on housekeeping cpus there are percpu
> > bounded timers interrupt/rcu threads and other system/user tasks
> > would be running with affinity as housekeeping cpus. In a real-life
> > environment, housekeeping cpus are much fewer and are too much loaded.
> > So, distribute_cpu_mask_prev value from these tasks impacts
> > the offset value for the tasks spawning to wakeup on isolcpus and
> > thus most of the tasks end up waking up on first cpu within the
> > isolcpus set.
> >
> > Steps to reproduce:
> > Kernel cmdline parameters:
> > isolcpus=2-5 skew_tick=1 nohz=on nohz_full=2-5
> > rcu_nocbs=2-5 rcu_nocb_poll idle=poll irqaffinity=0-1
> >
> > * pid=$(echo $$)
> > * taskset -pc 0 $pid
> > * cat loop-normal.c
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > while (1)
> > ;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > * gcc -o loop-normal loop-normal.c
> > * for i in {1..50}; do ./loop-normal & done
> > * pids=$(ps -a | grep loop-normal | cut -d' ' -f5)
> > * for i in $pids; do taskset -pc 2-5 $i ; done
> >
> > Expected output:
> > * All 50 “loop-normal” tasks should wake up on cpu2-5
> > equally distributed.
> > * ps -eLo cpuid,pid,tid,ppid,cls,psr,cls,cmd | grep "^ [2345]"
> >
> > Actual output:
> > * All 50 “loop-normal” tasks got woken up on cpu2 only
>
> Your expectation is wrong. Things work as advertised.
That is, isolcpus results in single CPU balance domains and as such we
must not distribute -- there is no load balancing.
Ideally we'd reject setting cpumasks with multi bits set on domains like
that, but alas, that would break historical behaviour :/
Now, looking at the code, I don't think the current code actually
behaves correct in this case :-(, somewhere along the line we should
truncate cpu_valid_mask to a single bit. Let me see where the sane place
is to do that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-11 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-11 7:19 [PATCH RFC] cpumask: Randomly distribute the tasks within affinity mask Ankit Jain
2023-10-11 10:39 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-10-11 10:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-11 11:46 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-10-11 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-11 23:55 ` Josh Don
2023-10-12 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-12 15:43 ` Ankit Jain
2023-10-12 0:16 ` Yury Norov
2023-10-12 15:52 ` Ankit Jain
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=20231011114642.GA36521@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akaher@vmware.com \
--cc=amakhalov@vmware.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ankitja@vmware.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=srinidhir@vmware.com \
--cc=srivatsa@csail.mit.edu \
--cc=vbrahmajosyula@vmware.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=vsirnapalli@vmware.com \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.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.