From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Steven Rostedt' <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: 'Vincent Guittot' <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: sched/fair: scheduler not running high priority process on idle cpu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:33:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ba2ae2d426c4058b314c20c25a9b1d0@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200114115906.22f952ff@gandalf.local.home>
From: Steven Rostedt
> Sent: 14 January 2020 16:59
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:50:43 +0000
> David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:
>
> > I've a test that uses four RT priority processes to process audio data every 10ms.
> > One process wakes up the other three, they all 'beaver away' clearing a queue of
> > jobs and the last one to finish sleeps until the next tick.
> > Usually this takes about 0.5ms, but sometimes takes over 3ms.
> >
> > AFAICT the processes are normally woken on the same cpu they last ran on.
> > There seems to be a problem when the selected cpu is running a (low priority)
> > process that is looping in kernel [1].
> > I'd expect my process to be picked up by one of the idle cpus, but this
> > doesn't happen.
> > Instead the process sits in state 'waiting' until the active processes sleeps
> > (or calls cond_resched()).
> >
> > Is this really the expected behaviour?????
>
> It is with CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY. I think you want to recompile your
> kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT. The idea is that the RT task will continue
> to run on the CPU it last ran on, and would push off the lower priority
> task to the idle CPU. But CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY means that this
> will have to wait for the running task to not be in kernel context or
> hit a cond_resched() which is the "voluntary" scheduling point.
I have added a cond_resched() to the offending loop, but a close look implies
that code is called with a lock held in another (less common) path so that
can't be directly committed and so CONFIG_PREEMPT won't help.
Indeed requiring CONFIG_PREEMPT doesn't help when customers are running
the application, nor (probably) on AWS since I doubt it is ever the default.
Does the same apply to non-RT tasks?
I can select almost any priority, but RT ones are otherwise a lot better.
I've also seen RT processes delayed by the network stack 'bh' that runs
in a softint from the hardware interrupt.
That can take a while (clearing up tx and refilling rx) and I don't think we
have any control over the cpu it runs on?
The cost of ftrace function call entry/exit (about 200 clocks) makes it
rather unsuitable for any performance measurements unless only
a very few functions are traced - which rather requires you know
what the code is doing :-(
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-14 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-14 16:50 sched/fair: scheduler not running high priority process on idle cpu David Laight
2020-01-14 16:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-14 17:33 ` David Laight [this message]
2020-01-14 17:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-15 12:44 ` David Laight
2020-01-15 13:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-15 14:43 ` David Laight
2020-01-15 15:11 ` David Laight
2020-01-15 15:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-15 17:07 ` David Laight
2020-01-20 9:39 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-20 10:51 ` David Laight
2020-01-15 14:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-15 15:09 ` David Laight
2020-01-15 12:57 ` David Laight
2020-01-15 14:23 ` Steven Rostedt
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=5ba2ae2d426c4058b314c20c25a9b1d0@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.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=viresh.kumar@linaro.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