From: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:42:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xm26jzvn8ds7.fsf@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230627191201.344110-1-pauld@redhat.com> (Phil Auld's message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:12:01 -0400")
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:
> CFS bandwidth limits and NOHZ full don't play well together. Tasks
> can easily run well past their quotas before a remote tick does
> accounting. This leads to long, multi-period stalls before such
> tasks can run again. Currentlyi, when presented with these conflicting
> requirements the scheduler is favoring nohz_full and letting the tick
> be stopped. However, nohz tick stopping is already best-effort, there
> are a number of conditions that can prevent it, whereas cfs runtime
> bandwidth is expected to be enforced.
>
> Make the scheduler favor bandwidth over stopping the tick by setting
> TICK_DEP_BIT_SCHED when the only running task is a cfs task with
> runtime limit enabled.
>
> Add sched_feat HZ_BW (off by default) to control this behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> ---
>
> v2: Ben pointed out that the bit could get cleared in the dequeue path
> if we migrate a newly enqueued task without preempting curr. Added a
> check for that edge case to sched_can_stop_tick. Removed the call to
> sched_can_stop_tick from sched_fair_update_stop_tick since it was
> redundant.
>
> kernel/sched/core.c | 12 +++++++++++
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/features.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index a68d1276bab0..646f60bfc7e7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1194,6 +1194,8 @@ static void nohz_csd_func(void *info)
> #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
> +extern bool sched_cfs_bandwidth_active(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
> +
> bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
> {
> int fifo_nr_running;
> @@ -1229,6 +1231,16 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
> if (rq->nr_running > 1)
> return false;
>
> + /*
> + * If there is one task and it has CFS runtime bandwidth constraints
> + * and it's on the cpu now we don't want to stop the tick.
> + */
> + if (sched_feat(HZ_BW) && rq->nr_running == 1 && rq->curr
> + && rq->curr->sched_class == &fair_sched_class && task_on_rq_queued(rq->curr)) {
> + if (sched_cfs_bandwidth_active(task_cfs_rq(rq->curr)))
Actually, something I should have noticed earlier is that this should
probably be hierarchical, right? You need to check every ancestor
cfs_rq, not just the immediate parent. And at that point it probably
makes sense to have sched_cfs_bandwidth_active take a task_struct.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-28 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-27 19:12 [PATCH v2] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use Phil Auld
2023-06-27 21:19 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-28 21:42 ` Benjamin Segall [this message]
2023-06-29 0:53 ` Phil Auld
2023-06-29 17:55 ` Benjamin Segall
2023-06-29 19:06 ` Phil Auld
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=xm26jzvn8ds7.fsf@google.com \
--to=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pauld@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 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.