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

Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-02-01T08:08:20Z

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 08:38:43AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 01:44:32PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:14:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > - Along with the wakeup of the kworker, need_resched needs to
> > > be set, such that cond_resched() triggers a reschedule.
> >
> > Let's try this? Does not look like discussing vhost itself will
> > draw attention from scheduler guys but posting a scheduling
> > patch probably will? Can you post a patch?
>
> As a baseline, I verified that the following two options fix
> the regression:
>
> - replacing the cond_resched in the vhost_worker function with a hard
> schedule
> - setting the need_resched flag using set_tsk_need_resched(current)
> right before calling cond_resched
>
> I then tried to find a better spot to put the set_tsk_need_resched
> call.
>
> One approach I found to be working is setting the need_resched flag
> at the end of handle_tx and hande_rx.
> This would be after data has been actually passed to the socket, so
> the originally blocked kworker has something to do and will profit
> from the reschedule.
> It might be possible to go deeper and place the set_tsk_need_resched
> call to the location right after actually passing the data, but this
> might leave us with sprinkling that call in multiple places and
> might be too intrusive.
> Furthermore, it might be possible to check if an error occured when
> preparing the transmission and then skip the setting of the flag.
>
> This would require a conceptual decision on the vhost side.
> This solution would not touch the scheduler, only incentivise it to
> do the right thing for this particular regression.
>
> Another idea could be to find the counterpart that initiates the
> actual data transfer, which I assume wakes up the kworker. From
> what I gather it seems to be an eventfd notification that ends up
> somewhere in the qemu code. Not sure if that context would allow
> to set the need_resched flag, nor whether this would be a good idea.
>
> >
> > > - On cond_resched(), verify if the consumed runtime of the caller
> > > is outweighing the negative lag of another process (e.g. the
> > > kworker) and schedule the other process. Introduces overhead
> > > to cond_resched.
> >
> > Or this last one.
>
> On cond_resched itself, this will probably only be possible in a very
> very hacky way. That is because currently, there is no immidiate access
> to the necessary data available, which would make it necessary to
> bloat up the cond_resched function quite a bit, with a probably
> non-negligible amount of overhead.
>
> Changing other aspects in the scheduler might get us in trouble as
> they all would probably resolve back to the question "What is the magic
> value that determines whether a small task not being scheduled justifies
> setting the need_resched flag for a currently running task or adjusting
> its lag?". As this would then also have to work for all non-vhost related
> cases, this looks like a dangerous path to me on second thought.
>
>
> -------- Summary --------
>
> In my (non-vhost experience) opinion the way to go would be either
> replacing the cond_resched with a hard schedule or setting the
> need_resched flag within vhost if the a data transfer was successfully
> initiated. It will be necessary to check if this causes problems with
> other workloads/benchmarks.

Yes but conceptually I am still in the dark on whether the fact that
periodically invoking cond_resched is no longer sufficient to be nice to
others is a bug, or intentional. So you feel it is intentional?
I propose a two patch series then:

patch 1: in this text in Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst

If you're doing longer computations: first think userspace. If you
**really** want to do it in kernel you should regularly check if you need
to give up the CPU (remember there is cooperative multitasking per CPU).
Idiom::

cond_resched(); /* Will sleep */

replace cond_resched -> schedule

Since apparently cond_resched is no longer sufficient to
make the scheduler check whether you need to give up the CPU.

patch 2: make this change for vhost.

WDYT?

--
MST