From: Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
Cc: "Valentin Schneider" <vschneid@redhat.com>,
"Ben Segall" <bsegall@google.com>,
"K Prateek Nayak" <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Chengming Zhou" <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
"Josh Don" <joshdon@google.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Xi Wang" <xii@google.com>,
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>,
"Florian Bezdeka" <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>,
"Songtang Liu" <liusongtang@bytedance.com>,
"Chen Yu" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
"Matteo Martelli" <matteo.martelli@codethink.co.uk>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent cfs_rq from being unthrottled with zero runtime_remaining
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:21:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6bcc899c-a2a5-7b77-dcff-436d2a7cc688@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251015084045.GB35@bytedance>
Hi Aaron,
On 2025/10/15 16:40, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 02:31:27PM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:
>> On 2025/10/15 10:51, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:43:20AM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:
>>> ... ...
>>>> Yes, I've already hit the cfs_rq->runtime_remaining < 0 condition in
>>>> tg_unthrottle_up().
>>>>
>>>> This morning, after applying your patch, I still get the same issue.
>>>> However, As before, because cfs_rq->curr isn't NULL,
>>>> check_enqueue_throttle() returns prematurely, preventing the triggering of
>>>> throttle_cfs_rq().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some information to share with you.
>>>
>>> Can you also share your cgroup setup and related quota setting etc. and
>>> how to trigger it? Thanks.
>>
>> I ran some internal workloads on my test machine with different quota
>> settings, and added 10 sched messaging branchmark cgroups, setting their
>> cpu.max to 1000 100000.
>>
>> perf bench sched messaging -g 10 -t -l 50000 &
>>
>> I'm not sure if the issue can be reproduced without these internal
>> workloads.
>
> Thanks for the report, I think I understand your concern now.
>
> I managed to trigger a condition in tg_unthrottle_up() for a cfs_rq that
> has runtime_enabled but with a negative runtime_remaining, the setup is
> as before:
>
> root
> / \
> A* ...
> / | \ ...
> B
> / \
> C*
>
> where both A and C have quota settings.
>
> 1 Initially, both cfs_rq_a and cfs_rq_c are in unthrottled state with a
> positive runtime_remaining.
> 2 At some time, cfs_rq_a is throttled. cfs_rq_c is now in a throttled
> hierarchy, but it's not throttled and has a positive runtime_remaining.
> 3 Some time later, task @p gets enqueued to cfs_rq_c and starts execution
> in kernel mode, consumed all cfs_rq_c's runtime_remaining.
> account_cfs_rq_runtime() properly accounted, but resched_curr() doesn't
> cause schedule() -> check_cfs_rq_runtime() -> throttle_cfs_rq() to
> happen immediately, because task @p is still executing in kernel mode
> (CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY).
> 4 Some time later, cfs_rq_a is unthrottled.
> tg_unthrottle_up() noticed cfs_rq_c has a negative runtime_remaining.
>
> In this situation, check_enqueue_throttle() will not do anything though
> because cfs_rq_c->curr is set, throttle will not happen immediately so
> it won't cause throttle to happen on unthrottle path.
>
> Hao Jia,
>
> Do I understand you correctly that you can only hit the newly added
> debug warn in tg_unthrottle_up():
> WARN_ON_ONCE(cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0);
> but not throttle triggered on unthrottle path?
>
yes. but I'm not sure if there are other corner cases where
cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0 and cfs_rq->curr is NULL.
> BTW, I think your change has the advantage of being straightforward and
> easy to reason about. My concern is, it's not efficient to enqueue tasks
> to a cfs_rq that has no runtime left, not sure how big a deal that is
> though.
Yes, but that's what we're doing now. The case described above involves
enqueue a task where cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0.
I previously tried adding a runtime_remaining check for each level of
task p's cfs_rq in unthrottle_cfs_rq()/tg_unthrottle_up(), but this made
the code strange and complicated.
Thanks,
Hao
>
> Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-15 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-29 7:46 [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent cfs_rq from being unthrottled with zero runtime_remaining Aaron Lu
2025-09-29 9:34 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-29 10:55 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-30 7:56 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-30 8:58 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-09-30 9:27 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-30 11:07 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-30 12:39 ` Aaron Lu
2025-09-30 13:38 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-10-01 11:58 ` Aaron Lu
2025-10-14 7:43 ` Hao Jia
2025-10-14 9:11 ` Aaron Lu
2025-10-14 11:01 ` Hao Jia
2025-10-14 11:50 ` Aaron Lu
2025-10-15 1:43 ` Hao Jia
2025-10-15 1:48 ` Hao Jia
2025-10-15 2:51 ` Aaron Lu
2025-10-15 6:31 ` Hao Jia
2025-10-15 8:40 ` Aaron Lu
2025-10-15 10:21 ` Hao Jia [this message]
2025-10-16 6:54 ` Aaron Lu
2025-10-16 7:49 ` Hao Jia
2025-10-16 9:23 ` Aaron Lu
2025-10-16 11:04 ` Hao Jia
2025-10-16 11:46 ` 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=6bcc899c-a2a5-7b77-dcff-436d2a7cc688@gmail.com \
--to=jiahao.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=florian.bezdeka@siemens.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=liusongtang@bytedance.com \
--cc=matteo.martelli@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=xii@google.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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