From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Xi Wang <xii@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>,
Songtang Liu <liusongtang@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 11:50:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250828035052.GA35@bytedance> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xhsmhsei2ox4o.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 01:45:11PM +0200, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 08/08/25 18:13, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 11:12:48AM +0200, Valentin Schneider wrote:
... ...
> >> > + if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq) &&
> >> > + !task_current_donor(rq_of(cfs_rq), p)) {
> >> > + list_add(&p->throttle_node, &cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list);
> >> > + return true;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + /* we can't take the fast path, do an actual enqueue*/
> >> > + p->throttled = false;
> >>
> >> So we clear p->throttled but not p->throttle_node? Won't that cause issues
> >> when @p's previous cfs_rq gets unthrottled?
> >>
> >
> > p->throttle_node is already removed from its previous cfs_rq at dequeue
> > time in dequeue_throttled_task().
> >
> > This is done so because in enqueue time, we may not hold its previous
> > rq's lock so can't touch its previous cfs_rq's limbo list, like when
> > dealing with affinity changes.
> >
>
> Ah right, the DQ/EQ_throttled_task() functions are when DQ/EQ is applied to an
> already-throttled task and it does the right thing.
>
> Does this mean we want this as enqueue_throttled_task()'s prologue?
>
> /* @p should have gone through dequeue_throttled_task() first */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&p->throttle_node));
>
While adding this change to the new version, I remembered this
enqueue_throttled_task() also gets called for tasks that are going to be
unthrottled on unthrottle path, i.e.
unthrottle_cfs_rq() -> tg_unthrottle_up() -> enqueue_task_fair()
because task's throttled flag is not cleared yet(but throttle_node is
removed from the limbo list so the above warn still works as expected).
I didn't clear p->throttled in tg_unthrottle_up() before calling
enqueue_task_fair() because enqueue_throttled_task() will take care of
that but now I look at it, I think it is better to clear p->throttled
before calling enqueue_task_fair(): this saves some cycles by skipping
enqueue_throttled_task() for these unthrottled tasks and
enqueue_throttled_task() only has to deal with migrated throttled task.
This feels cleaner and more efficient. I remember Prateek also suggested
this before but I couldn't find his email now, not sure if I remembered
wrong.
Any way, just a note that I'm going to make below changes to the next
version, let me know if this doesn't look right, thanks.
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 785a15caffbcc..df8dc389af8e1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5904,6 +5904,7 @@ static int tg_unthrottle_up(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
/* Re-enqueue the tasks that have been throttled at this level. */
list_for_each_entry_safe(p, tmp, &cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list, throttle_node) {
list_del_init(&p->throttle_node);
+ p->throttled = false;
enqueue_task_fair(rq_of(cfs_rq), p, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-28 3:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-15 7:16 [PATCH v3 0/5] Defer throttle when task exits to user Aaron Lu
2025-07-15 7:16 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] sched/fair: Add related data structure for task based throttle Aaron Lu
2025-07-15 7:16 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] sched/fair: Implement throttle task work and related helpers Aaron Lu
2025-07-15 7:16 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model Aaron Lu
2025-07-15 23:29 ` kernel test robot
2025-07-16 6:57 ` Aaron Lu
2025-07-16 7:40 ` Philip Li
2025-07-16 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 update " Aaron Lu
2025-07-16 11:27 ` [PATCH v3 " Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-16 15:20 ` kernel test robot
2025-07-17 3:52 ` Aaron Lu
2025-07-23 8:21 ` Oliver Sang
2025-07-23 10:08 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-08 9:12 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-08-08 10:13 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-08 11:45 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-08-12 8:48 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-14 15:54 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-08-15 9:30 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-22 11:07 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-03 7:14 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-03 9:11 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-03 10:11 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-03 10:31 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-03 11:35 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-04 7:33 ` Bezdeka, Florian
2025-09-04 8:26 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-04 8:40 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-28 3:50 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2025-08-17 8:50 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-08-18 2:50 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-18 3:10 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-08-18 3:12 ` Aaron Lu
2025-07-15 7:16 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] sched/fair: Task based throttle time accounting Aaron Lu
2025-08-18 14:57 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-08-19 9:34 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-19 14:09 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-08-26 14:10 ` Michal Koutný
2025-08-27 15:16 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-08-28 6:06 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-26 9:15 ` Aaron Lu
2025-07-15 7:16 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] sched/fair: Get rid of throttled_lb_pair() Aaron Lu
2025-07-15 7:22 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Defer throttle when task exits to user Aaron Lu
2025-08-01 14:31 ` Matteo Martelli
2025-08-04 7:52 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-04 11:18 ` Valentin Schneider
2025-08-04 11:56 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-08 16:37 ` Matteo Martelli
2025-08-04 8:51 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-08-04 11:48 ` Aaron Lu
2025-08-27 14:58 ` Valentin Schneider
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=20250828035052.GA35@bytedance \
--to=ziqianlu@bytedance.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=florian.bezdeka@siemens.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liusongtang@bytedance.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=xii@google.com \
--cc=zhouchuyi@bytedance.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).