Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] locktorture: Allow non-rtmutex lock types to be boosted

[Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>]

On 2022-11-23 at 01:21:03 +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Currently RT boosting is only done for rtmutex_lock, however with proxy
> execution, we also have the mutex_lock participating in priorities. To
> exercise the testing better, add RT boosting to other lock testing types
> as well, using a new knob (rt_boost).
> 
> Tested with boot parameters:
> locktorture.torture_type=mutex_lock
> locktorture.onoff_interval=1
> locktorture.nwriters_stress=8
> locktorture.stutter=0
> locktorture.rt_boost=1
> locktorture.rt_boost_factor=1
> locktorture.nlocks=3
> 
> For the rtmutex test, rt_boost is always enabled even if disabling is
> requested.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
I have tested this patch set based on
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221003214501.2050087-1-connoro@google.com/
using:
insmod locktorture.ko torture_type=mutex_lock rt_boost=1 rt_boost_factor=1 stutter=0 nlocks=3
on a dual sockets with 228 CPUs. So far I did not find any error/warning in the past
8 hours.

I'm trying to ramp up what scenario PE would bring benefit to. For mutex_lock(), would
it benefit frequent cgroup hierarchy update because of global cgroup_mutex contention?
But in theory the cgroup hierarchy update would be quite rare in daily usage?

Besides, according to
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221003214501.2050087-1-connoro@google.com/
PE could also mitigate cgroup 'priority inversion':
"One notable scenario arises when cpu cgroups
are used to throttle less important background tasks. Priority inversion
can occur when an "important" unthrottled task blocks on a mutex held by
an "unimportant" task whose CPU time is constrained using cpu
shares. The result is higher worst case latencies for the unthrottled
task." Is it applicable to add cgroup based(different shares) mutex_lock contention
in locktorture?

BTW, can we also expose the rt_boost/rt_boost_factor in lock_torture_print_module_parms()?

thanks,
Chenyu