public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.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>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 19:35:51 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250903113551.GC42@bytedance> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13467b08-96a6-478d-bb97-060b7d8887e4@amd.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4001 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 04:01:03PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
> 
> On 9/3/2025 3:41 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > Hi Prateek,
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:41:55PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> >> Hello Aaron,
> >>
> >> On 9/3/2025 12:44 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 07:07:01PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> >>>> With this said, I reduced the task number and retested on this 2nd AMD
> >>>> Genoa:
> >>>> - quota set to 50 cpu for each level1 cgroup;
> >>
> >> What exactly is the quota and period when you say 50cpu?
> > 
> > period is the default 100000 and quota is set to 5000000.
> 
> Thank you! I'll do some tests on my end as well.
>

I've attached test scripts I've used for your reference.

> [..snip..]
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index df8dc389af8e1..3e927b9b7eeb6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -9370,6 +9370,9 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
> >  	if ((p->se.sched_delayed) && (env->migration_type != migrate_load))
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > +	if (throttled_hierarchy(task_group(p)->cfs_rq[env->dst_cpu]))
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> 
> This makes sense instead of the full throttled_lb_pair(). You'll still
> need to put it behind CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED (or better yet
> CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH) since task_group() can return NULL if GROUP_SCHED
> is not enabled.
> 

Got it, thanks for the remind. Maybe I can avoid adding new wrappers
and just check task_group() first, something like this:

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index df8dc389af8e1..d9abde5e631b8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -9362,6 +9362,7 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
 	/*
 	 * We do not migrate tasks that are:
 	 * 1) delayed dequeued unless we migrate load, or
+	 * 2) target cfs_rq is in throttled hierarchy, or
 	 * 2) cannot be migrated to this CPU due to cpus_ptr, or
 	 * 3) running (obviously), or
 	 * 4) are cache-hot on their current CPU, or
@@ -9370,6 +9371,10 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
 	if ((p->se.sched_delayed) && (env->migration_type != migrate_load))
 		return 0;
 
+	if (task_group(p) &&
+	    throttled_hierarchy(task_group(p)->cfs_rq[env->dst_cpu]))
+		return 0;
+
 	/*
 	 * We want to prioritize the migration of eligible tasks.
 	 * For ineligible tasks we soft-limit them and only allow


> >  	/*
> >  	 * We want to prioritize the migration of eligible tasks.
> >  	 * For ineligible tasks we soft-limit them and only allow
> > 
> >          base              head'               diff     head(patch1-5)
> > Time     82.55±4.82%       83.81±2.89%         -1.5%    99.69±6.71%
> > 
> > head': head + above diff
> > 
> > I also tested netperf on this AMD system as well as hackbench and
> > netperf on Intel EMR, no obvious performance difference observed
> > after applying the above diff, i.e. base and head' performance is
> > roughly the same.
> > 
> > Does the above diff make sense? One thing I'm slightly concerned is,
> > there may be one case when balancing a task to a throttled target
> > cfs_rq makes sense: if the task holds some kernel resource and is
> > running inside kernel, even its target cfs_rq is throttled, we still
> > want this task to go there and finish its job in kernel mode sooner,
> > this could help other resource waiters. But, this may not be a big deal
> 
> I think it is still an improvement over per-cfs_rq throttling from a
> tail latency perspective.
> 
> > and in most of the time, balancing a task to a throttled cfs_rq doesn't
> > look like a meaningful thing to do.Ack.

Just want to add that with the above diff applied, I also tested
songtang's stress test[0] and Jan's rt deadlock reproducer[1] and didn't
see any problem.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250715072218.GA304@bytedance/
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7483d3ae-5846-4067-b9f7-390a614ba408@siemens.com/

[-- Attachment #2: test.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-sh, Size: 2030 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: run_in_cg.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-sh, Size: 294 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #4: cleanup.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-sh, Size: 1022 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-03 11:36 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 [this message]
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
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=20250903113551.GC42@bytedance \
    --to=ziqianlu@bytedance.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --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