public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Xi Wang <xii@google.com>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] Defer throttle when task exits to user
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 11:05:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d0e1fa3-1faa-4dd2-95a1-00e7ca48aa42@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250409120746.635476-1-ziqianlu@bytedance.com>

On 2025/4/9 20:07, Aaron Lu wrote:
> This is a continuous work based on Valentin Schneider's posting here:
> Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] sched/fair: Defer CFS throttle to user entry
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240711130004.2157737-1-vschneid@redhat.com/
> 
> Valentin has described the problem very well in the above link. We also
> have task hung problem from time to time in our environment due to cfs quota.
> It is mostly visible with rwsem: when a reader is throttled, writer comes in
> and has to wait, the writer also makes all subsequent readers wait,
> causing problems of priority inversion or even whole system hung.
> 
> To improve this situation, change the throttle model to task based, i.e.
> when a cfs_rq is throttled, mark its throttled status but do not
> remove it from cpu's rq. Instead, for tasks that belong to this cfs_rq,
> when they get picked, add a task work to them so that when they return
> to user, they can be dequeued. In this way, tasks throttled will not
> hold any kernel resources. When cfs_rq gets unthrottled, enqueue back
> those throttled tasks.
> 
> There are consequences because of this new throttle model, e.g. for a
> cfs_rq that has 3 tasks attached, when 2 tasks are throttled on their
> return2user path, one task still running in kernel mode, this cfs_rq is
> in a partial throttled state:
> - Should its pelt clock be frozen?
> - Should this state be accounted into throttled_time?
> 
> For pelt clock, I chose to keep the current behavior to freeze it on
> cfs_rq's throttle time. The assumption is that tasks running in kernel
> mode should not last too long, freezing the cfs_rq's pelt clock can keep
> its load and its corresponding sched_entity's weight. Hopefully, this can
> result in a stable situation for the remaining running tasks to quickly
> finish their jobs in kernel mode.

Seems reasonable to me, although I'm wondering is it possible or desirable
to implement per-task PELT freeze?

> 
> For throttle time accounting, I can see several possibilities:
> - Similar to current behavior: starts accounting when cfs_rq gets
>    throttled(if cfs_rq->nr_queued > 0) and stops accounting when cfs_rq
>    gets unthrottled. This has one drawback, e.g. if this cfs_rq has one
>    task when it gets throttled and eventually, that task doesn't return
>    to user but blocks, then this cfs_rq has no tasks on throttled list
>    but time is accounted as throttled; Patch2 and patch3 implements this
>    accounting(simple, fewer code change).
> - Starts accounting when the throttled cfs_rq has at least one task on
>    its throttled list; stops accounting when it's unthrottled. This kind
>    of over accounts throttled time because partial throttle state is
>    accounted.
> - Starts accounting when the throttled cfs_rq has no tasks left and its
>    throttled list is not empty; stops accounting when this cfs_rq is
>    unthrottled; This kind of under accounts throttled time because partial
>    throttle state is not accounted. Patch7 implements this accounting.
> I do not have a strong feeling which accounting is the best, it's open
> for discussion.

I personally prefer option 2, which has a more practical throttled time,
so we can know how long there are some tasks throttled in fact.

Thanks!

> 
> There is also the concern of increased duration of (un)throttle operations
> in v1. I've done some tests and with a 2000 cgroups/20K runnable tasks
> setup on a 2sockets/384cpus AMD server, the longest duration of
> distribute_cfs_runtime() is in the 2ms-4ms range. For details, please see:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250324085822.GA732629@bytedance/
> For throttle path, with Chengming's suggestion to move "task work setup"
> from throttle time to pick time, it's not an issue anymore.
> 
> Patches:
> Patch1 is preparation work;
> 
> Patch2-3 provide the main functionality.
> Patch2 deals with throttle path: when a cfs_rq is to be throttled, mark
> throttled status for this cfs_rq and when tasks in throttled hierarchy
> gets picked, add a task work to them so that when those tasks return to
> user space, the task work can throttle it by dequeuing the task and
> remember this by adding the task to its cfs_rq's limbo list;
> Patch3 deals with unthrottle path: when a cfs_rq is to be unthrottled,
> enqueue back those tasks in limbo list;
> 
> Patch4 deals with the dequeue path when task changes group, sched class
> etc. Task that is throttled is dequeued in fair, but task->on_rq is
> still set so when it changes task group or sched class or has affinity
> setting change, core will firstly dequeue it. But since this task is
> already dequeued in fair class, this patch handle this situation.
> 
> Patch5-6 are clean ups. Some code are obsolete after switching to task
> based throttle mechanism.
> 
> Patch7 implements an alternative accounting mechanism for task based
> throttle.
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - Move "add task work" from throttle time to pick time, suggested by
>    Chengming Zhou;
> - Use scope_gard() and cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() in
>    throttle_cfs_rq_work(), suggested by K Prateek Nayak;
> - Remove now obsolete throttled_lb_pair(), suggested by K Prateek Nayak;
> - Fix cfs_rq->runtime_remaining condition check in unthrottle_cfs_rq(),
>    suggested by K Prateek Nayak;
> - Fix h_nr_runnable accounting for delayed dequeue case when task based
>    throttle is in use;
> - Implemented an alternative way of throttle time accounting for
>    discussion purpose;
> - Make !CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH build.
> I hope I didn't omit any feedbacks I've received, but feel free to let me
> know if I did.
> 
> As in v1, all change logs are written by me and if they read bad, it's
> my fault.
> 
> Comments are welcome.
> 
> Base commit: tip/sched/core, commit 6432e163ba1b("sched/isolation: Make
> use of more than one housekeeping cpu").
> 
> Aaron Lu (4):
>    sched/fair: Take care of group/affinity/sched_class change for
>      throttled task
>    sched/fair: get rid of throttled_lb_pair()
>    sched/fair: fix h_nr_runnable accounting with per-task throttle
>    sched/fair: alternative way of accounting throttle time
> 
> Valentin Schneider (3):
>    sched/fair: Add related data structure for task based throttle
>    sched/fair: Handle throttle path for task based throttle
>    sched/fair: Handle unthrottle path for task based throttle
> 
>   include/linux/sched.h |   4 +
>   kernel/sched/core.c   |   3 +
>   kernel/sched/fair.c   | 449 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>   kernel/sched/sched.h  |   7 +
>   4 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 215 deletions(-)
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-04-14  3:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-09 12:07 [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] Defer throttle when task exits to user Aaron Lu
2025-04-09 12:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] sched/fair: Add related data structure for task based throttle Aaron Lu
2025-04-14  3:58   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-14 11:55     ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-14 13:37       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-09 12:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/7] sched/fair: Handle throttle path " Aaron Lu
2025-04-14  8:54   ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-04-14 12:10     ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-14 14:39   ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-04-14 15:02     ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-30 10:01   ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-09 12:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/7] sched/fair: Handle unthrottle " Aaron Lu
2025-04-09 12:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/7] sched/fair: Take care of group/affinity/sched_class change for throttled task Aaron Lu
2025-04-09 12:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] sched/fair: get rid of throttled_lb_pair() Aaron Lu
2025-04-09 12:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/7] sched/fair: fix h_nr_runnable accounting with per-task throttle Aaron Lu
2025-04-09 12:07 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] sched/fair: alternative way of accounting throttle time Aaron Lu
2025-04-09 14:24   ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-17 14:06   ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-04-18  3:15     ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-22 15:03       ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-04-23 11:26         ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-23 12:15           ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-04-24  2:26             ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-07  9:09     ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-07  9:33       ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-05-08  2:45         ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-08  6:13           ` Jan Kiszka
2025-05-08 13:43             ` Steven Rostedt
2025-04-14  3:05 ` Chengming Zhou [this message]
2025-04-14 11:47   ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] Defer throttle when task exits to user Aaron Lu
2025-04-14  8:54 ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-04-14 12:04   ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-15  5:29     ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-15  6:05       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-15  6:09         ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-15  8:45           ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-15 10:21             ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-15 11:14               ` K Prateek Nayak
     [not found]               ` <ec2cea83-07fe-472f-8320-911d215473fd@amd.com>
2025-04-15 15:49                 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-22  2:10                   ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-22  2:54                     ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-22 14:54                       ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-04-15 10:34             ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-14 16:34 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-15 11:25   ` Aaron Lu

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=4d0e1fa3-1faa-4dd2-95a1-00e7ca48aa42@linux.dev \
    --to=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.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=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 \
    --cc=ziqianlu@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