Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use

[Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:07:12PM -0700 Benjamin Segall wrote:
> Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 09:10:24AM -0400 Phil Auld wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:54:58PM -0700 Benjamin Segall wrote:
> >> > 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. Currently, 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. We use cfs_b->hierarchical_quota to
> >> > > determine if the task requires the tick.
> >> > >
> >> > > Add check in pick_next_task_fair() as well since that is where
> >> > > we have a handle on the task that is actually going to be running.
> >> > >
> >> > > Add check in sched_can_stop_tick() to cover some edge cases such 
> >> > > as nr_running going from 2->1 and the 1 remains the running task.
> >> > >
> >> > > Add sched_feat HZ_BW (off by default) to control the tick_stop
> >> > > 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>
> >> > > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >  kernel/sched/core.c     | 12 ++++++++++
> >> > >  kernel/sched/fair.c     | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > >  kernel/sched/features.h |  2 ++
> >> > >  kernel/sched/sched.h    |  1 +
> >> > >  4 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> > > index 1b214e10c25d..4b8534abdf4f 100644
> >> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> > > @@ -1229,6 +1229,18 @@ 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.
> >> > > +	 * This check prevents clearing the bit if a newly enqueued task here is
> >> > > +	 * dequeued by migrating while the constrained task continues to run.
> >> > > +	 * E.g. going from 2->1 without going through pick_next_task().
> >> > > +	 */
> >> > > +	if (sched_feat(HZ_BW) && rq->nr_running == 1 && task_on_rq_queued(rq->curr)) {
> >> > > +		if (cfs_task_bw_constrained(rq->curr))
> >> > > +			return false;
> >> > > +	}
> >> > > +
> >> > 
> >> > I think we still need the fair_sched_class check with the bit being on
> >> > cfs_rq/tg rather than task.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Is there a way a non-fair_sched_class task will be in a cfs_rq with
> >> cfs_rq->runtime_enabled and/or cfs_b->hierarchical_quota set to non
> >> RUNTIME_INF?  I suppose if they are stale and it's had its class changed?
> >> 
> >> That makes the condition pretty ugly but I can add that back if needed.
> >> 
> >
> > Sigh, yeah. I took that out when I had the bit in the task. I'll put it
> > back in...
> >
> 
> Yeah, cfs_rq (and rt_rq) are set unconditionally, and a cgroup can have
> a mix of fair and RT tasks (whether or not that's a good idea from a
> sysadmin perspective).
> 

Thanks. I think I'll try the condition as a single-use static inline function.
The generated code seems the same but it is a bit nicer to read.


Cheers,
Phil


--