Re: Re: Re: EEVDF/vhost regression (bisected to 86bfbb7ce4f6 sched/fair: Add lag based placement)

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:14:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 
> > Peter, would appreciate feedback on this. When is cond_resched()
> > insufficient to give up the CPU? Should Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst
> > be updated to require schedule() instead?
> > 
> 
> Happy new year everybody!
> 
> I'd like to bring this thread back to life. To reiterate:
> 
> - The introduction of the EEVDF scheduler revealed a performance
>   regression in a uperf testcase of ~50%.
> - Tracing the scheduler showed that it takes decisions which are
>   in line with its design.
> - The traces showed as well, that a vhost instance might run
>   excessively long on its CPU in some circumstance. Those cause
>   the performance regression as they cause delay times of 100+ms
>   for a kworker which drives the actual network processing.
> - Before EEVDF, the vhost would always be scheduled off its CPU
>   in favor of the kworker, as the kworker was being woken up and
>   the former scheduler was giving more priority to the woken up
>   task. With EEVDF, the kworker, as a long running process, is
>   able to accumulate negative lag, which causes EEVDF to not
>   prefer it on its wake up, leaving the vhost running.
> - If the kworker is not scheduled when being woken up, the vhost
>   continues looping until it is migrated off the CPU.
> - The vhost offers to be scheduled off the CPU by calling 
>   cond_resched(), but, the the need_resched flag is not set,
>   therefore cond_resched() does nothing.
> 
> To solve this, I see the following options 
>   (might not be a complete nor a correct list)
> - Along with the wakeup of the kworker, need_resched needs to
>   be set, such that cond_resched() triggers a reschedule.

Let's try this? Does not look like discussing vhost itself will
draw attention from scheduler guys but posting a scheduling
patch probably will? Can you post a patch?

> - The vhost calls schedule() instead of cond_resched() to give up
>   the CPU. This would of course be a significantly stricter
>   approach and might limit the performance of vhost in other cases.
> - Preventing the kworker from accumulating negative lag as it is
>   mostly not runnable and if it runs, it only runs for a very short
>   time frame. This might clash with the overall concept of EEVDF.
> - On cond_resched(), verify if the consumed runtime of the caller
>   is outweighing the negative lag of another process (e.g. the 
>   kworker) and schedule the other process. Introduces overhead
>   to cond_resched.

Or this last one.


> 
> I would be curious on feedback on those ideas and interested in
> alternative approaches.