From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: vpillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, pjt@google.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com,
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
aubrey.li@linux.intel.com,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
joel@joelfernandes.org, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/13] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:35:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200414133559.GT20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e942da7fd881977923463f19648085c1bfaa37f8.1583332765.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:59:57PM +0000, vpillai wrote:
> +static struct task_struct *
> +pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *next, *max = NULL;
> + const struct sched_class *class;
> + const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
> + int i, j, cpu;
> + bool need_sync = false;
AFAICT that assignment is superfluous. Also, you violated the inverse
x-mas tree.
> +
> + cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> + if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> + return idle_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq);
Are we actually hitting this one?
> + if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
> + return __pick_next_task(rq, prev, rf);
> +
> + /*
> + * If there were no {en,de}queues since we picked (IOW, the task
> + * pointers are all still valid), and we haven't scheduled the last
> + * pick yet, do so now.
> + */
> + if (rq->core->core_pick_seq == rq->core->core_task_seq &&
> + rq->core->core_pick_seq != rq->core_sched_seq) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(rq->core_sched_seq, rq->core->core_pick_seq);
> +
> + next = rq->core_pick;
> + if (next != prev) {
> + put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> + set_next_task(rq, next);
> + }
> + return next;
> + }
> +
> + prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> + if (!rq->nr_running)
> + newidle_balance(rq, rf);
This is wrong per commit:
6e2df0581f56 ("sched: Fix pick_next_task() vs 'change' pattern race")
> + smt_mask = cpu_smt_mask(cpu);
> +
> + /*
> + * core->core_task_seq, core->core_pick_seq, rq->core_sched_seq
> + *
> + * @task_seq guards the task state ({en,de}queues)
> + * @pick_seq is the @task_seq we did a selection on
> + * @sched_seq is the @pick_seq we scheduled
> + *
> + * However, preemptions can cause multiple picks on the same task set.
> + * 'Fix' this by also increasing @task_seq for every pick.
> + */
> + rq->core->core_task_seq++;
> + need_sync = !!rq->core->core_cookie;
> +
> + /* reset state */
> + rq->core->core_cookie = 0UL;
> + for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> + struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> +
> + rq_i->core_pick = NULL;
> +
> + if (rq_i->core_forceidle) {
> + need_sync = true;
> + rq_i->core_forceidle = false;
> + }
> +
> + if (i != cpu)
> + update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Try and select tasks for each sibling in decending sched_class
> + * order.
> + */
> + for_each_class(class) {
> +again:
> + for_each_cpu_wrap(i, smt_mask, cpu) {
> + struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> + struct task_struct *p;
> +
> + if (cpu_is_offline(i)) {
> + rq_i->core_pick = rq_i->idle;
> + continue;
> + }
Why are we polluting the 'fast' path with offline crud? Why isn't this
the natural result of running pick_task() on an empty runqueue?
> +
> + if (rq_i->core_pick)
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * If this sibling doesn't yet have a suitable task to
> + * run; ask for the most elegible task, given the
> + * highest priority task already selected for this
> + * core.
> + */
> + p = pick_task(rq_i, class, max);
> + if (!p) {
> + /*
> + * If there weren't no cookies; we don't need
> + * to bother with the other siblings.
> + */
> + if (i == cpu && !need_sync)
> + goto next_class;
> +
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Optimize the 'normal' case where there aren't any
> + * cookies and we don't need to sync up.
> + */
> + if (i == cpu && !need_sync && !p->core_cookie) {
> + next = p;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + rq_i->core_pick = p;
> +
> + /*
> + * If this new candidate is of higher priority than the
> + * previous; and they're incompatible; we need to wipe
> + * the slate and start over. pick_task makes sure that
> + * p's priority is more than max if it doesn't match
> + * max's cookie.
> + *
> + * NOTE: this is a linear max-filter and is thus bounded
> + * in execution time.
> + */
> + if (!max || !cookie_match(max, p)) {
> + struct task_struct *old_max = max;
> +
> + rq->core->core_cookie = p->core_cookie;
> + max = p;
> +
> + if (old_max) {
> + for_each_cpu(j, smt_mask) {
> + if (j == i)
> + continue;
> +
> + cpu_rq(j)->core_pick = NULL;
> + }
> + goto again;
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Once we select a task for a cpu, we
> + * should not be doing an unconstrained
> + * pick because it might starve a task
> + * on a forced idle cpu.
> + */
> + need_sync = true;
> + }
> +
> + }
> + }
> +next_class:;
> + }
> +
> + rq->core->core_pick_seq = rq->core->core_task_seq;
> + next = rq->core_pick;
> + rq->core_sched_seq = rq->core->core_pick_seq;
> +
> + /*
> + * Reschedule siblings
> + *
> + * NOTE: L1TF -- at this point we're no longer running the old task and
> + * sending an IPI (below) ensures the sibling will no longer be running
> + * their task. This ensures there is no inter-sibling overlap between
> + * non-matching user state.
> + */
> + for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> + struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> +
> + if (cpu_is_offline(i))
> + continue;
Another one; please explain how an offline cpu can be part of the
smt_mask. Last time I checked it got cleared in stop-machine.
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!rq_i->core_pick);
> +
> + if (is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running)
> + rq_i->core_forceidle = true;
> +
> + if (i == cpu)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (rq_i->curr != rq_i->core_pick)
> + resched_curr(rq_i);
> +
> + /* Did we break L1TF mitigation requirements? */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!cookie_match(next, rq_i->core_pick));
That comment is misleading...
> + }
> +
> +done:
> + set_next_task(rq, next);
> + return next;
> +}
----8<----
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index a9eeef896c78..8432de767730 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4080,6 +4080,13 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> update_min_vruntime(cfs_rq);
> }
>
> +static inline bool
> +__entity_slice_used(struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> + return (se->sum_exec_runtime - se->prev_sum_exec_runtime) >
> + sched_slice(cfs_rq_of(se), se);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Preempt the current task with a newly woken task if needed:
> */
> @@ -10285,6 +10292,34 @@ static void core_sched_deactivate_fair(struct rq *rq)
> #endif
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> +/*
> + * If runqueue has only one task which used up its slice and
> + * if the sibling is forced idle, then trigger schedule
> + * to give forced idle task a chance.
> + */
> +static void resched_forceidle_sibling(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> + int cpu = cpu_of(rq), sibling_cpu;
> + if (rq->cfs.nr_running > 1 || !__entity_slice_used(se))
> + return;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(sibling_cpu, cpu_smt_mask(cpu)) {
> + struct rq *sibling_rq;
> + if (sibling_cpu == cpu)
> + continue;
> + if (cpu_is_offline(sibling_cpu))
> + continue;
> +
> + sibling_rq = cpu_rq(sibling_cpu);
> + if (sibling_rq->core_forceidle) {
> + resched_curr(sibling_rq);
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +
> /*
> * scheduler tick hitting a task of our scheduling class.
> *
> @@ -10308,6 +10343,11 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued)
>
> update_misfit_status(curr, rq);
> update_overutilized_status(task_rq(curr));
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> + if (sched_core_enabled(rq))
> + resched_forceidle_sibling(rq, &curr->se);
> +#endif
> }
>
> /*
This ^ seems like it should be in it's own patch.
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 03d502357599..a829e26fa43a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -1003,11 +1003,16 @@ struct rq {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> /* per rq */
> struct rq *core;
> + struct task_struct *core_pick;
> unsigned int core_enabled;
> + unsigned int core_sched_seq;
> struct rb_root core_tree;
> + bool core_forceidle;
Someone forgot that _Bool shouldn't be part of composite types?
> /* shared state */
> unsigned int core_task_seq;
> + unsigned int core_pick_seq;
> + unsigned long core_cookie;
> #endif
> };
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-14 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-04 16:59 [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 01/13] sched: Wrap rq::lock access vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 02/13] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock vpillai
2020-04-01 11:42 ` [PATCH] sched/arm64: store cpu topology before notify_cpu_starting Cheng Jian
2020-04-01 13:23 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-06 8:00 ` chengjian (D)
2020-04-09 9:59 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-04-09 10:32 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-09 11:08 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-04-09 17:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-04-10 13:49 ` chengjian (D)
2020-04-14 11:36 ` [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-14 21:35 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-15 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-14 14:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 04/13] sched/fair: Add a few assertions vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 05/13] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 06/13] sched: Update core scheduler queue when taking cpu online/offline vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 07/13] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling vpillai
2020-04-14 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-04-16 23:32 ` Tim Chen
2020-04-17 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 3:39 ` Chen Yu
2020-04-16 19:59 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-17 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-19 15:31 ` Chen Yu
2020-05-21 23:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 23:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-22 2:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-22 3:44 ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-22 20:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 08/13] sched/fair: wrapper for cfs_rq->min_vruntime vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 09/13] sched/fair: core wide vruntime comparison vpillai
2020-04-14 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-15 3:34 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-15 4:07 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-15 21:24 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-17 9:40 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-20 8:07 ` [PATCH updated] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison Aaron Lu
2020-04-20 22:26 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-21 2:51 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-24 14:24 ` [PATCH updated v2] " Aaron Lu
2020-05-06 14:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-08 8:44 ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-08 9:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-08 12:34 ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-14 13:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-14 22:51 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-15 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 10:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 14:24 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-16 3:42 ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-22 9:40 ` Aaron Lu
2020-06-08 1:41 ` Ning, Hongyu
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 10/13] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer vpillai
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 11/13] sched: migration changes for core scheduling vpillai
2020-06-12 13:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-12 21:32 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-13 2:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-13 18:59 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-15 2:05 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 12/13] sched: cgroup tagging interface " vpillai
2020-06-26 15:06 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 13/13] sched: Debug bits vpillai
2020-03-04 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 Tim Chen
2020-03-04 17:42 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-14 14:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-15 16:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-04-17 11:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-17 12:35 ` Alexander Graf
2020-04-17 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-18 2:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-09 14:35 ` Dario Faggioli
[not found] ` <38805656-2e2f-222a-c083-692f4b113313@linux.intel.com>
2020-05-09 3:39 ` Ning, Hongyu
2020-05-14 20:51 ` FW: " Gruza, Agata
2020-05-10 23:46 ` [PATCH RFC] Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-11 13:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-11 14:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-20 22:26 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-21 4:09 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-05-21 13:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 8:51 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-21 13:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 20:20 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-22 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-22 21:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-24 14:00 ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 14:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-28 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-28 18:17 ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 18:34 ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 18:23 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-21 20:40 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 21:58 ` Jesse Barnes
2020-05-22 16:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-20 22:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2] Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-20 22:48 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Use sched-RCU in core-scheduling balancing logic Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-21 22:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-22 1:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-25 20:12 ` [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-26 1:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-26 14:36 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-26 15:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-26 15:12 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-27 16:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-30 14:11 ` Phil Auld
2020-06-29 12:33 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-06-29 19:41 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
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=20200414133559.GT20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox