Re: Re: Re: EEVDF/vhost regression (bisected to 86bfbb7ce4f6 sched/fair: Add lag based placement)

Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-12-13T12:01:06Z

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:37:23AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:15:01AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:00:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:54 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> We played around with the suggestions and some other ideas.
> I would like to share some initial results.
>
> We tried the following:
>
> 1. Call uncondtional schedule in the vhost_worker function
> 2. Change the HZ value from 100 to 1000
> 3. Reverting 05bfb338fa8d vhost: Fix livepatch timeouts in vhost_worker()
> 4. Adding a cond_resched to translate_desc
> 5. Reducing VHOST_NET_WEIGHT to 25% of its original value
>
> Please find the diffs below.
>
> Summary:
>
> Option 1 is very very hacky but resolved the regression.
> Option 2 reduces the regression by ~20%.
> Options 3-5 do not help unfortunately.
>
> Potential explanation:
>
> While the vhost is executing, the need_resched flag is not set (observable
> in the traces). Therefore cond_resched and alike will do nothing. vhost
> will continue executing until the need_resched flag is set by an external
> party, e.g. by a request to migrate the vhost.
>
> Calling schedule unconditionally forces the scheduler to re-evaluate all
> tasks and their vruntime/deadline/vlag values. The scheduler comes to the
> correct conclusion, that the kworker should be executed and from there it
> is smooth sailing. I will have to verify that sequence by collecting more
> traces, but this seems rather plausible.
> This hack might of course introduce all kinds of side effects but might
> provide an indicator that this is the actual problem.
> The big question would be how to solve this conceptually, and, first
> things first, whether you think this is a viable hypothesis.
>
> Increasing the HZ value helps most likely because the other CPUs take
> scheduling/load balancing decisions more often as well and therefore
> trigger the migration faster.
>
> Bringing down VHOST_NET_WEIGHT even more might also help to shorten the
> vhost loop. But I have no intuition how low we can/should go here.
>
>
> We also changed vq_err to print error messages, but did not encounter any.
>
> Diffs:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Call uncondtional schedule in the vhost_worker function
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index e0c181ad17e3..16d73fd28831 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ static bool vhost_worker(void *data)
> }
> }
>
> + schedule();
> return !!node;
> }

So, this helps.
But this is very surprising!

static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
{
struct vhost_task *vtsk = data;
bool dead = false;

for (;;) {
bool did_work;

if (!dead && signal_pending(current)) {
struct ksignal ksig;
/*
* Calling get_signal will block in SIGSTOP,
* or clear fatal_signal_pending, but remember
* what was set.
*
* This thread won't actually exit until all
* of the file descriptors are closed, and
* the release function is called.
*/
dead = get_signal(&ksig);
if (dead)
clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
}

/* mb paired w/ vhost_task_stop */
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);

if (test_bit(VHOST_TASK_FLAGS_STOP, &vtsk->flags)) {
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
break;
}

did_work = vtsk->fn(vtsk->data);
if (!did_work)
schedule();
}

complete(&vtsk->exited);
do_exit(0);

}

Apparently schedule is already called?

--
MST