Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix CPU bandwidth limit bypass during CPU hotplug

Zhang Qiao
2024-12-10T11:31:53Z

在 2024/12/10 18:23, Vishal Chourasia 写道:
> CPU controller limits are not properly enforced during CPU hotplug
> operations, particularly during CPU offline. When a CPU goes offline,
> throttled processes are unintentionally being unthrottled across all CPUs
> in the system, allowing them to exceed their assigned quota limits.
>
> Consider below for an example,
>
> Assigning 6.25% bandwidth limit to a cgroup
> in a 8 CPU system, where, workload is running 8 threads for 20 seconds at
> 100% CPU utilization, expected (user+sys) time = 10 seconds.
>
> $ cat /sys/fs/cgroup/test/cpu.max
> 50000 100000
>
> $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20 // non-hotplug case
> real 20.00 s
> user 10.81 s // intended behaviour
> sys 0.00 s
>
> $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20 // hotplug case
> real 20.00 s
> user 14.43 s // Workload is able to run for 14 secs
> sys 0.00 s // when it should have only run for 10 secs
>
> During CPU hotplug, scheduler domains are rebuilt and cpu_attach_domain
> is called for every active CPU to update the root domain. That ends up
> calling rq_offline_fair which un-throttles any throttled hierarchies.
>
> Unthrottling should only occur for the CPU being hotplugged to allow its
> throttled processes to become runnable and get migrated to other CPUs.
>
> With current patch applied,
> $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20 // hotplug case
> real 21.00 s
> user 10.16 s // intended behaviour
> sys 0.00 s
>

Could add a description of another issue[1] here？

This bug also has another symptom, when a CPU goes offline, the cfs_rq
is not in throttled state and the runtime_remaining still had plenty
remaining, but it was reset to 1 here, causing the runtime_remaining of
cfs_rq to be quickly depleted and the actual running time slice is
smaller than the configured quota limits.

[1]https://lore.kernel.org/all/fb488379-3965-496b-8c6f-259981f3d7e5@huawei.com/

> Note: hotplug operation (online, offline) was performed in while(1) loop
> > Signed-off-by: Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@linux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>

Suggested-by: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>

--
thanks,
Zhang Qiao.

>
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241207052730.1746380-2-vishalc@linux.ibm.com
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241126064812.809903-2-vishalc@linux.ibm.com
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index aa0238ee4857..2faf7dff2bc8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6687,25 +6687,30 @@ static void __maybe_unused unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq)
> rq_clock_start_loop_update(rq);
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(tg, &task_groups, list) {
> - struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq)];
> + /* Traverse the thread group list only for inactive rq */
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu_of(rq), cpu_active_mask)) {
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(tg, &task_groups, list) {
> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq)];
>
> - if (!cfs_rq->runtime_enabled)
> - continue;
> + if (!cfs_rq->runtime_enabled)
> + continue;
>
> - /*
> - * clock_task is not advancing so we just need to make sure
> - * there's some valid quota amount
> - */
> - cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1;
> - /*
> - * Offline rq is schedulable till CPU is completely disabled
> - * in take_cpu_down(), so we prevent new cfs throttling here.
> - */
> - cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = 0;
> + /*
> + * Offline rq is schedulable till CPU is completely disabled
> + * in take_cpu_down(), so we prevent new cfs throttling here.
> + */
> + cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = 0;
>
> - if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> + if (!cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * clock_task is not advancing so we just need to make sure
> + * there's some valid quota amount
> + */
> + cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1;
> unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> + }
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>