From: Jeehong Kim <jhez.kim@samsung.com>
To: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ezjjilong@gmail.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched/fair: Fix that tasks are not constrained by cfs_b->quota on hotplug core, when hotplug core is offline and then online.
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:59:17 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57E38F55.9020601@samsung.com> (raw)
>Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> You forgot to Cc Ben, who gave you feedback on v1, which is rather poor
>> style. Also, I don't see how kernel-janitors is relevant to this patch.
>> This is very much not a janitorial thing.
>>
>> (also, why send it twice?)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:12:40PM +0900, Jeehong Kim wrote:
>>> In case that CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU and CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH is turned on
>>> and tasks in bandwidth controlled task group run on hotplug core,
>>> the tasks are not controlled by cfs_b->quota when hotplug core is offline
>>> and then online. The remaining tasks in task group consume all of
>>> cfs_b->quota on other cores.
>>>
>>> The cause of this problem is described as below:
>>>
>>> 1. When hotplug core is offline while tasks in task group run
>>> on hotplug core, unregister_fair_sched_group() deletes
>>> leaf_cfs_rq_list of tg->cfs_rq[cpu] from &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list.
>>>
>>> 2. Then, when hotplug core is online, update_runtime_enabled()
>>Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> You forgot to Cc Ben, who gave you feedback on v1, which is rather poor
>> style. Also, I don't see how kernel-janitors is relevant to this patch.
>> This is very much not a janitorial thing.
>>
>> (also, why send it twice?)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:12:40PM +0900, Jeehong Kim wrote:
>>> In case that CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU and CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH is turned on
>>> and tasks in bandwidth controlled task group run on hotplug core,
>>> the tasks are not controlled by cfs_b->quota when hotplug core is offline
>>> and then online. The remaining tasks in task group consume all of
>>> cfs_b->quota on other cores.
>>>
>>> The cause of this problem is described as below:
>>>
>>> 1. When hotplug core is offline while tasks in task group run
>>> on hotplug core, unregister_fair_sched_group() deletes
>>> leaf_cfs_rq_list of tg->cfs_rq[cpu] from &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list.
>>>
>>> 2. Then, when hotplug core is online, update_runtime_enabled()
>>> registers cfs_b->quota on cfs_rq->runtime_enabled of all leaf cfs_rq
>>> on runqueue. However, because this is before enqueue_entity() adds
>>> &cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list on &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list,
>>> cfs->quota is not register on cfs_rq->runtime_enabled.
>>>
>>> To resolve this problem, this patch makes update_runtime_enabled()
>>> registers cfs_b->quota by using walk_tg_tree_from().
>>
>>
>>> +static int __maybe_unused __update_runtime_enabled(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
>>> {
>>> + struct rq *rq = data;
>>> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq)];
>>> + struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b = &cfs_rq->tg->cfs_bandwidth;
>>>
>>> + raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
>>> + raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
>>>
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void __maybe_unused update_runtime_enabled(struct rq *rq)
>>> +{
>>> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
>>> +
>>> + /* register cfs_b->quota on the whole tg tree */
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> + walk_tg_tree_from(cfs_rq->tg, __update_runtime_enabled, tg_nop, (void *)rq);
>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>> }
>>
>> Looks ok, performance on hotplug doesn't really matter. Ben, you happy
>> with this?
>
> I'm not 100% sure about the exact timings and mechanics of hotplug, but
> cfs-bandwidth wise this is ok. We may still have runtime_remaining = 1,
> or we may have < 0 and yet be unthrottled, but either case is ok, even
> if hotplug allows tasks to have migrated here already (I'm not sure,
> looking at the code).
>
> Now that I check again you can just loop over the list of tgs rather
> than the hierarchical walk_tg_tree_from, but there's certainly no harm
> in it.
Ben,
Is there additional revision which I have to do?
If so, could you let me know about that?
Regards,
Jeehong Kim
next reply other threads:[~2016-09-22 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-22 7:59 Jeehong Kim [this message]
2016-09-22 16:53 ` [PATCH V2] sched/fair: Fix that tasks are not constrained by cfs_b->quota on hotplug core, when hotplug core is offline and then online bsegall
2016-09-27 3:41 ` Jeehong Kim
2016-09-27 17:13 ` bsegall
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-08-30 13:12 Jeehong Kim
2016-09-01 11:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-01 11:52 ` Jeehong Kim
2016-09-01 17:23 ` bsegall
2016-08-30 13:09 Jeehong Kim
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=57E38F55.9020601@samsung.com \
--to=jhez.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=ezjjilong@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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