Re: [RFC] sched/fair: hard lockup in sched_cfs_period_timer

bsegall
2019-03-12T17:29:44Z

Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:44:25AM -0700 bsegall@google.com wrote:
>> Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 11:25:02AM -0800 bsegall@google.com wrote:
>> >> Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:45:34PM -0800 bsegall@google.com wrote:
>> >> >> Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Interestingly, if I limit the number of child cgroups to the number of
>> >> >> > them I'm actually putting processes into (16 down from 2500) the problem
>> >> >> > does not reproduce.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is indeed interesting, and definitely not something we'd want to
>> >> >> matter. (Particularly if it's not root->a->b->c...->throttled_cgroup or
>> >> >> root->throttled->a->...->thread vs root->throttled_cgroup, which is what
>> >> >> I was originally thinking of)
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The locking may be a red herring.
>> >> >
>> >> > The setup is root->throttled->a where a is 1-2500. There are 4 threads in
>> >> > each of the first 16 a groups. The parent, throttled, is where the
>> >> > cfs_period/quota_us are set.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wonder if the problem is the walk_tg_tree_from() call in unthrottle_cfs_rq().
>> >> >
>> >> > The distribute_cfg_runtime looks to be O(n * m) where n is number of
>> >> > throttled cfs_rqs and m is the number of child cgroups. But I'm not
>> >> > completely clear on how the hierarchical cgroups play together here.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll pull on this thread some.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for your input.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Phil
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, that isn't under the cfs_b lock, but is still part of distribute
>> >> (and under rq lock, which might also matter). I was thinking too much
>> >> about just the cfs_b regions. I'm not sure there's any good general
>> >> optimization there.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's really an edge case, but the watchdog NMI is pretty painful.
>> >
>> >> I suppose cfs_rqs (tgs/cfs_bs?) could have "nearest
>> >> ancestor with a quota" pointer and ones with quota could have
>> >> "descendants with quota" list, parallel to the children/parent lists of
>> >> tgs. Then throttle/unthrottle would only have to visit these lists, and
>> >> child cgroups/cfs_rqs without their own quotas would just check
>> >> cfs_rq->nearest_quota_cfs_rq->throttle_count. throttled_clock_task_time
>> >> can also probably be tracked there.
>> >
>> > That seems like it would add a lot of complexity for this edge case. Maybe
>> > it would be acceptible to use the safety valve like my first example, or
>> > something like the below which will tune the period up until it doesn't
>> > overrun for ever. The down side of this one is it does change the user's
>> > settings, but that could be preferable to an NMI crash.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm not sure what solution is best here, but one of the solutions
>> should be done.
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Phil
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > index 310d0637fe4b..78f9e28adc7b 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > @@ -4859,16 +4859,42 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
>> > return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +extern const u64 max_cfs_quota_period;
>> > +s64 cfs_quota_period_autotune_thresh = 100 * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
>> > +int cfs_quota_period_autotune_shift = 4; /* 100 / 16 = 6.25% */
>>
>> Letting it spin for 100ms and then only increasing by 6% seems extremely
>> generous. If we went this route I'd probably say "after looping N
>> times, set the period to time taken / N + X%" where N is like 8 or
>> something. I think I'd probably perfer something like this to the
>> previous "just abort and let it happen again next interrupt" one.
>
> Okay. I'll try to spin something up that does this. It may be a little
> trickier to keep the quota proportional to the new period. I think that's
> important since we'll be changing the user's setting.
>
> Do you mean to have it break when it hits N and recalculates the period or
> reset the counter and keep going?
>

In theory you should be fine doing it once more I think? And yeah,
keeping the quota correct is a bit more annoying given you have to use
fixed point math.