From: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] sched: fair-group: per root-domain load balancing
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:46:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47B5C1E1.5090706@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080214160234.681387000@chello.nl>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7598 bytes --]
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Currently the lb_monitor will walk all the domains/cpus from a single
> cpu's timer interrupt. This will cause massive cache-trashing and cache-line
> bouncing on larger machines.
>
> Split the lb_monitor into root_domain (disjoint sched-domains).
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> CC: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> kernel/sched_fair.c | 2
> 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -357,8 +357,6 @@ struct lb_monitor {
> spinlock_t lock;
> };
>
> -static struct lb_monitor lb_monitor;
> -
> /*
> * How frequently should we rebalance_shares() across cpus?
> *
> @@ -417,6 +415,9 @@ static void lb_monitor_wake(struct lb_mo
> if (hrtimer_active(&lb_monitor->timer))
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * XXX: rd->load_balance && weight(rd->span) > 1
> + */
> if (nr_cpu_ids == 1)
> return;
>
> @@ -444,6 +445,11 @@ static void lb_monitor_init(struct lb_mo
>
> spin_lock_init(&lb_monitor->lock);
> }
> +
> +static int lb_monitor_destroy(struct lb_monitor *lb_monitor)
> +{
> + return hrtimer_cancel(&lb_monitor->timer);
> +}
> #endif
>
> static void set_se_shares(struct sched_entity *se, unsigned long shares);
> @@ -607,6 +613,8 @@ struct root_domain {
> */
> cpumask_t rto_mask;
> atomic_t rto_count;
> +
> + struct lb_monitor lb_monitor;
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -6328,6 +6336,7 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> const struct sched_class *class;
> + int active = 0;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
>
> @@ -6342,8 +6351,14 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq
> cpu_clear(rq->cpu, old_rd->span);
> cpu_clear(rq->cpu, old_rd->online);
>
> - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&old_rd->refcount))
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&old_rd->refcount)) {
> + /*
> + * sync with active timers.
> + */
> + active = lb_monitor_destroy(&old_rd->lb_monitor);
> +
> kfree(old_rd);
Note that this works out to be a bug in my code on -rt since you cannot
kfree() while the raw rq->lock is held. This isn't your problem, per
se, but just a heads up that I might need to patch this area ASAP.
> + }
> }
>
> atomic_inc(&rd->refcount);
> @@ -6358,6 +6373,9 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq
> class->join_domain(rq);
> }
>
> + if (active)
> + lb_monitor_wake(&rd->lb_monitor);
> +
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
> }
>
> @@ -6367,6 +6385,8 @@ static void init_rootdomain(struct root_
>
> cpus_clear(rd->span);
> cpus_clear(rd->online);
> +
> + lb_monitor_init(&rd->lb_monitor);
> }
>
> static void init_defrootdomain(void)
> @@ -7398,10 +7418,6 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> init_defrootdomain();
> -
> -#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> - lb_monitor_init(&lb_monitor);
> -#endif
> #endif
> init_rt_bandwidth(&def_rt_bandwidth,
> global_rt_period(), global_rt_runtime());
> @@ -7631,11 +7647,11 @@ void set_curr_task(int cpu, struct task_
> * distribute shares of all task groups among their schedulable entities,
> * to reflect load distribution across cpus.
> */
> -static int rebalance_shares(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu)
> +static int rebalance_shares(struct root_domain *rd, int this_cpu)
> {
> struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(this_cpu);
> - cpumask_t sdspan = sd->span;
> + cpumask_t sdspan = rd->span;
> int state = shares_idle;
>
> /* Walk thr' all the task groups that we have */
> @@ -7685,50 +7701,12 @@ static int rebalance_shares(struct sched
> return state;
> }
>
> -static int load_balance_shares(struct lb_monitor *lb_monitor)
> +static void set_lb_monitor_timeout(struct lb_monitor *lb_monitor, int state)
> {
> - int i, cpu, state = shares_idle;
> u64 max_timeout = (u64)sysctl_sched_max_bal_int_shares * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
> u64 min_timeout = (u64)sysctl_sched_min_bal_int_shares * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
> u64 timeout;
>
> - /* Prevent cpus going down or coming up */
> - /* get_online_cpus(); */
> - /* lockout changes to doms_cur[] array */
> - /* lock_doms_cur(); */
> - /*
> - * Enter a rcu read-side critical section to safely walk rq->sd
> - * chain on various cpus and to walk task group list
> - * (rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list) in rebalance_shares().
> - */
> - rcu_read_lock();
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < ndoms_cur; i++) {
> - cpumask_t cpumap = doms_cur[i];
> - struct sched_domain *sd = NULL, *sd_prev = NULL;
> -
> - cpu = first_cpu(cpumap);
> -
> - /* Find the highest domain at which to balance shares */
> - for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> - if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
> - continue;
> - sd_prev = sd;
> - }
> -
> - sd = sd_prev;
> - /* sd == NULL? No load balance reqd in this domain */
> - if (!sd)
> - continue;
> -
> - state = max(state, rebalance_shares(sd, cpu));
> - }
> -
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> -
> - /* unlock_doms_cur(); */
> - /* put_online_cpus(); */
> -
> timeout = ktime_to_ns(lb_monitor->timeout);
> switch (state) {
> case shares_balanced:
> @@ -7741,6 +7719,38 @@ static int load_balance_shares(struct lb
> break;
> }
> lb_monitor->timeout = ns_to_ktime(timeout);
> +}
> +
> +static int load_balance_shares(struct lb_monitor *lb_monitor)
> +{
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + struct root_domain *rd;
> + struct sched_domain *sd, *sd_prev = NULL;
> + int state = shares_idle;
> +
> + spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> + /*
> + * root_domain will stay valid until timer exits - synchronized by
> + * hrtimer_cancel().
> + */
> + rd = rq->rd;
> + spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
I know we talked about this on IRC, I'm am still skeptical about this
part of the code. Normally we only guarantee the stability of the
rq->rd pointer while the rq->lock is held or a rd->refcount is added.
It would be "safer" to bracket this code with an up/down sequence on the
rd->refcount, but perhaps you can convince me that it is not needed?
(i.e. I am still not understanding how the timer guarantees the stability).
[up-ref]
> +
> + /*
> + * complicated way to find rd->load_balance
> + */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
> + continue;
> + sd_prev = sd;
> + }
> + if (sd_prev)
> + state = max(state, rebalance_shares(rd, cpu));
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
[down-ref]
We would of course need to re-work the drop-ref code so it could be
freed independent of the rq_attach_root() function, but that should be
trivial.
> + set_lb_monitor_timeout(lb_monitor, state);
>
> return state;
> }
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ account_entity_enqueue(struct cfs_rq *cf
> se->on_rq = 1;
> list_add(&se->group_node, &cfs_rq->tasks);
> #if defined(CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> - lb_monitor_wake(&lb_monitor);
> + lb_monitor_wake(&rq_of(cfs_rq)->rd->lb_monitor);
> #endif
> }
>
>
> --
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-15 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-14 15:57 [RFC][PATCH 0/2] reworking load_balance_monitor Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-14 15:57 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] sched: fair-group: rework load_balance_monitor Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-14 15:57 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] sched: fair-group: per root-domain load balancing Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-15 16:46 ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2008-02-15 19:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-19 12:42 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-14 16:09 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/2] reworking load_balance_monitor Gregory Haskins
2008-02-14 18:15 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-14 19:16 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-18 8:24 ` Dhaval Giani
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=47B5C1E1.5090706@gmail.com \
--to=gregory.haskins@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.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