From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] sched/debug: Remove need_resched ratelimiting for warnings
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 12:15:19 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <85f483ed-845c-a25f-3558-e1a8629e9200@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4952e9fd-0d85-4d4d-9bf4-ae127d612008@linux.ibm.com>
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Madadi Vineeth Reddy wrote:
> Hi David Rientjes,
>
> On 07/01/25 02:09, David Rientjes wrote:
> > The need_resched warnings are controlled by two tunables in debugfs:
> > - latency_warn_ms
> > - latency_warn_once
> >
> > By default, latency_warn_once is enabled. Thus, a need_resched warning
> > is only emitted once per boot.
> >
> > If the user configures this to not be the case and changes the default,
> > then allow the user to also control the threshold through latency_warn_ms
> > that these warnings trigger. Do not impose our own ratelimiting on top
> > that may make it appear like there are no cases where need_resched is set
> > for longer than the threshold.
>
> Any idea why it was initially kept to one warning per hour?
>
Adding Josh Don who may have insight into this historically.
> The possible reasons that come to mind are to prevent excessive logging under
> high CPU contention, as well as to ensure that a warning logged once an hour
> indicates the issue is not caused by a short workload spike. Additionally,
> this rate limit might help avoid impacting system performance due to excessive
> logging.
>
> However, if the default value of latency_warn_once is changed to disable it, it
> may be acceptable to bypass the rate limit, as it would indicate a preference
> for logging over performance.
>
Right, I think this should be entirely up to what the admin configures in
debugfs. If they elect to disable latency_warn_once, we'll simply emit
the information as often as they specify in latency_warn_ms and not add
our own ratelimiting on top. If they have a preference for lots of
logging, so be it, let's not hide that data.
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Madadi Vineeth Reddy
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/debug.c | 5 -----
> > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/debug.c b/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > --- a/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > @@ -1293,11 +1293,6 @@ void proc_sched_set_task(struct task_struct *p)
> >
> > void resched_latency_warn(int cpu, u64 latency)
> > {
> > - static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(latency_check_ratelimit, 60 * 60 * HZ, 1);
> > -
> > - if (likely(!__ratelimit(&latency_check_ratelimit)))
> > - return;
> > -
> > pr_err("sched: CPU %d need_resched set for > %llu ns (%d ticks) without schedule\n",
> > cpu, latency, cpu_rq(cpu)->ticks_without_resched);
> > dump_stack();
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-07 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <77e42990-0ea3-fc53-8051-6856a92ad4d0@google.com>
2025-01-06 20:39 ` [patch 2/2] sched/debug: Remove need_resched ratelimiting for warnings David Rientjes
2025-01-07 18:14 ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-01-07 20:15 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2025-01-07 20:45 ` Josh Don
2025-01-09 17:59 ` David Rientjes
2025-01-09 18:53 ` Josh Don
2025-01-10 0:22 ` David Rientjes
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=85f483ed-845c-a25f-3558-e1a8629e9200@google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.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=vineethr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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