From: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Limit sched_cfs_period_timer loop to avoid hard lockup
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:29:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190318132916.GA15377@pauld.bos.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190315160347.GZ5996@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 05:03:47PM +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:30:42AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
>
> >> I'll rework the maths in the averaged version and post v2 if that makes sense.
> >
> > It may have the extra timer fetch, although maybe I could rework it so that it used the
> > nsstart time the first time and did not need to do it twice in a row. I had originally
> > reverted the hrtimer_forward_now() to hrtimer_forward() but put that back.
>
> Sure; but remember, simpler is often better, esp. for code that
> typically 'never' runs.
I reworked it to the below. This settles a bit faster. The average is sort of squishy because
it's 3 samples divided by 4. And if we stay in a single call after updating the period the "average"
will be even less accurate.
It settles at a larger value faster so produces fewer messages and none of the callback supressed ones.
The added complexity may not be worth it, though.
I think this or your version, either one, would work.
What needs to happen now to get one of them to land somewhere? Should I just repost one with my
signed-off and let you add whatever other tags? And if so do you have a preference for which one?
Also, Ben, thoughts?
Cheers,
Phil
--
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ea74d43924b2..297fd228fdb0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4885,6 +4885,8 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
}
+extern const u64 max_cfs_quota_period;
+
static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_period_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
{
struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b =
@@ -4892,14 +4894,46 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_period_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
unsigned long flags;
int overrun;
int idle = 0;
+ int count = 0;
+ u64 start, now;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cfs_b->lock, flags);
+ now = start = ktime_to_ns(hrtimer_cb_get_time(timer));
for (;;) {
- overrun = hrtimer_forward_now(timer, cfs_b->period);
+ overrun = hrtimer_forward(timer, now, cfs_b->period);
if (!overrun)
break;
+ if (++count > 3) {
+ u64 new, old = ktime_to_ns(cfs_b->period);
+
+ /* rough average of the time each loop is taking
+ * really should be (n-s)/3 but this is easier for the machine
+ */
+ new = (now - start) >> 2;
+ if (new < old)
+ new = old;
+ new = (new * 147) / 128; /* ~115% */
+ new = min(new, max_cfs_quota_period);
+
+ cfs_b->period = ns_to_ktime(new);
+
+ /* since max is 1s, this is limited to 1e9^2, which fits in u64 */
+ cfs_b->quota *= new;
+ cfs_b->quota /= old;
+
+ pr_warn_ratelimited(
+ "cfs_period_timer[cpu%d]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us %lld, cfs_quota_us = %lld)\n",
+ smp_processor_id(),
+ new/NSEC_PER_USEC,
+ cfs_b->quota/NSEC_PER_USEC);
+
+ /* reset count so we don't come right back in here */
+ count = 0;
+ }
+
idle = do_sched_cfs_period_timer(cfs_b, overrun, flags);
+ now = ktime_to_ns(hrtimer_cb_get_time(timer));
}
if (idle)
cfs_b->period_active = 0;
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-18 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-13 15:08 [PATCH] sched/fair: Limit sched_cfs_period_timer loop to avoid hard lockup Phil Auld
2019-03-15 10:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-15 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-15 13:51 ` Phil Auld
2019-03-15 15:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-15 16:19 ` Phil Auld
2019-03-15 13:30 ` Phil Auld
2019-03-15 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-15 15:30 ` Phil Auld
2019-03-15 16:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-15 16:17 ` Phil Auld
2019-03-18 13:29 ` Phil Auld [this message]
2019-03-18 17:14 ` bsegall
2019-03-18 17:52 ` 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=20190318132916.GA15377@pauld.bos.csb \
--to=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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