From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] sched/fair: break out of newidle balancing if an RT task appears
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 13:03:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YJUecEMZNDfD1Z4K@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210428232821.2506201-4-swood@redhat.com>
I'm going to pretend to have never seen the prior two patches. They do
absolutely horrible things for unspecified reasons. You've utterly
failed to explain what exactly is taking that 1ms+.
newidle_balance() already has 'stop, you're spending too much time'
controls; you've failed to explain how those are falling short and why
they cannot be improved.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 06:28:21PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> The CFS load balancer can take a little while, to the point of it having
> a special LBF_NEED_BREAK flag, when the task moving code takes a
> breather.
>
> However, at that point it will jump right back in to load balancing,
> without checking whether the CPU has gained any runnable real time
> (or deadline) tasks.
>
> Break out of load balancing in the CPU_NEWLY_IDLE case, to allow the
> scheduling of the RT task. Without this, latencies of over 1ms are
> seen on large systems.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
> [swood: Limit change to newidle]
> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
> ---
> v2: Only break out of newidle balancing
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index aa8c87b6aff8..c3500c963af2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9502,10 +9502,21 @@ imbalanced_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> +static bool stop_balance_early(struct lb_env *env)
> +{
> + return env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && rq_has_higher_tasks(env->dst_rq);
> +}
> +
> +static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env, int *continue_balancing)
> {
> struct sched_domain *sd = env->sd;
>
> + /* Run the realtime task now; load balance later. */
> + if (stop_balance_early(env)) {
> + *continue_balancing = 0;
> + return 0;
> + }
This placement doesn't make any sense. You very much want this to return
true for the sd->balance_interval = sd->min_interval block for example.
And the other callsite already has an if (idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
condition to use.
Also, I don't think we care about the higher thing here (either);
newidle is about getting *any* work here, if there's something to do, we
don't need to do more.
> +
> if (asym_active_balance(env))
> return 1;
>
> @@ -9550,7 +9561,7 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> * to do the newly idle load balance.
> */
> if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
> - return 1;
> + return !rq_has_higher_tasks(env->dst_rq);
has_higher_task makes no sense here, newidle can stop the moment
nr_running != 0.
>
> /* Try to find first idle CPU */
> for_each_cpu_and(cpu, group_balance_mask(sg), env->cpus) {
> @@ -9660,6 +9671,11 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>
> local_irq_restore(rf.flags);
>
> + if (stop_balance_early(&env)) {
> + *continue_balancing = 0;
> + goto out;
> + }
Same thing.
> +
> if (env.flags & LBF_NEED_BREAK) {
> env.flags &= ~LBF_NEED_BREAK;
> goto more_balance;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-07 11:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-28 23:28 [PATCH v2 0/3] newidle_balance() PREEMPT_RT latency mitigations Scott Wood
2021-04-28 23:28 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/fair: Call newidle_balance() from balance_callback on PREEMPT_RT Scott Wood
2021-05-05 12:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-05-07 15:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-04-28 23:28 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] sched/fair: Enable interrupts when dropping lock in newidle_balance() Scott Wood
2021-04-28 23:28 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] sched/fair: break out of newidle balancing if an RT task appears Scott Wood
2021-04-29 4:11 ` kernel test robot
2021-04-29 6:37 ` kernel test robot
2021-05-07 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-05-15 7:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-05-15 8:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-04-29 7:12 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] newidle_balance() PREEMPT_RT latency mitigations Vincent Guittot
2021-05-01 22:03 ` Scott Wood
2021-05-02 3:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-05-03 16:33 ` Scott Wood
2021-05-03 18:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-05-03 21:57 ` Scott Wood
2021-05-04 4:07 ` Mike Galbraith
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=YJUecEMZNDfD1Z4K@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=swood@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox