From: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu controller can't provide fair CPU time for each group
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:56:00 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AF23EC0.2070606@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AEF94E8.3030403@cn.fujitsu.com>
Hi, Ingo
Could you see the following problems?
Regards
Miao
on 2009-11-3 11:26, Miao Xie wrote:
> Hi, Peter.
>
> I found two problems about cpu controller:
> 1) cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU time to groups when the tasks
> attached into those groups were bound to the same logic CPU.
> 2) cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU time to groups when shares of
> each group <= 2 * nr_cpus.
>
> The detail is following:
> 1) The first one is that cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU time to
> groups when the tasks attached into those groups were bound to the
> same logic CPU.
>
> The reason is that there is something with the computing of the per
> cpu shares.
>
> on my test box with 16 logic CPU, I did the following manipulation:
> a. create 2 cpu controller groups.
> b. attach a task into one group and 2 tasks into the other.
> c. bind three tasks to the same logic cpu.
> +--------+ +--------+
> | group1 | | group2 |
> +--------+ +--------+
> | |
> CPU0 Task A Task B & Task C
>
> The following is the reproduce steps:
> # mkdir /dev/cpuctl
> # mount -t cgroup -o cpu,noprefix cpuctl /dev/cpuctl
> # mkdir /dev/cpuctl/1
> # mkdir /dev/cpuctl/2
> # cat /dev/zero > /dev/null &
> # pid1=$!
> # echo $pid1 > /dev/cpuctl/1/tasks
> # taskset -p -c 0 $pid1
> # cat /dev/zero > /dev/null &
> # pid2=$!
> # echo $pid2 > /dev/cpuctl/2/tasks
> # taskset -p -c 0 $pid2
> # cat /dev/zero > /dev/null &
> # pid3=$!
> # echo $pid3 > /dev/cpuctl/2/tasks
> # taskset -p -c 0 $pid3
>
> some time later, I found the the task in the group1 got the 35% CPU
> time not
> 50% CPU time. It was very strange that this result against the expected.
>
> this problem was caused by the wrong computing of the per cpu shares.
> According to the design of the cpu controller, the shares of each cpu
> controller group will be divided for every CPU by the workload of each
> logic CPU.
> cpu[i] shares = group shares * CPU[i] workload / sum(CPU workload)
>
> But if the CPU has no task, cpu controller will pretend there is one of
> average load, usually this average load is 1024, the load of the task
> whose
> nice is zero. So in the test, the shares of group1 on CPU0 is:
> 1024 * (1 * 1024) / ((1 * 1024 + 15 * 1024)) = 64
> and the shares of group2 on CPU0 is:
> 1024 * (2 * 1024) / ((2 * 1024 + 15 * 1024)) = 120
> The scheduler of the CPU0 provided CPU time to each group by the shares
> above. The bug occured.
>
> 2) The second problem is that cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU
> time to
> groups when shares of each group <= 2 * nr_cpus
>
> The reason is that per cpu shares was set to MIN_SHARES(=2) if shares of
> each group <= 2 * nr_cpus.
>
> on the test box with 16 logic CPU, we do the following test:
> a. create two cpu controller groups
> b. attach 32 tasks into each group
> c. set shares of the first group to 16, the other to 32
> +--------+ +--------+
> | group1 | | group2 |
> +--------+ +--------+
> |shares=16 |shares=32
> | |
> 16 Tasks 32 Tasks
>
> some time later, the first group got 50% CPU time, not 33%. It also
> was very
> strange that this result against the expected.
>
> It is because the shares of cpuctl group was small, and there is many
> logic
> CPU. So per cpu shares that was computed was less than MIN_SHARES,
> and then
> was set to MIN_SHARES.
>
> Maybe 16 and 32 is not used usually. We can set a usual number(such
> as 1024)
> to avoid this problem on my box. But the number of CPU on a machine will
> become more and more in the future. If the number of CPU is greater
> than 512,
> this bug will occur even we set shares of group to 1024. This is a usual
> number. At this rate, the usual user will feel strange.
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-05 2:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-03 2:26 [BUG] cpu controller can't provide fair CPU time for each group Miao Xie
2009-11-05 2:56 ` Miao Xie [this message]
2009-11-10 0:22 ` Andrew Morton
2009-11-10 9:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-11 6:21 ` Yasunori Goto
2009-11-11 7:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-11 9:59 ` Yasunori Goto
2009-11-11 20:39 ` Chris Friesen
2009-11-11 20:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-11 10:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-12 1:12 ` Yasunori Goto
2009-11-19 7:09 ` Yasunori Goto
2009-12-09 9:55 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched: cgroup: Implement different treatment for idle shares tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
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=4AF23EC0.2070606@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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