From: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:42:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xm26jzvn8ds7.fsf@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230627191201.344110-1-pauld@redhat.com> (Phil Auld's message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:12:01 -0400")
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:
> CFS bandwidth limits and NOHZ full don't play well together. Tasks
> can easily run well past their quotas before a remote tick does
> accounting. This leads to long, multi-period stalls before such
> tasks can run again. Currentlyi, when presented with these conflicting
> requirements the scheduler is favoring nohz_full and letting the tick
> be stopped. However, nohz tick stopping is already best-effort, there
> are a number of conditions that can prevent it, whereas cfs runtime
> bandwidth is expected to be enforced.
>
> Make the scheduler favor bandwidth over stopping the tick by setting
> TICK_DEP_BIT_SCHED when the only running task is a cfs task with
> runtime limit enabled.
>
> Add sched_feat HZ_BW (off by default) to control this behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> ---
>
> v2: Ben pointed out that the bit could get cleared in the dequeue path
> if we migrate a newly enqueued task without preempting curr. Added a
> check for that edge case to sched_can_stop_tick. Removed the call to
> sched_can_stop_tick from sched_fair_update_stop_tick since it was
> redundant.
>
> kernel/sched/core.c | 12 +++++++++++
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/features.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index a68d1276bab0..646f60bfc7e7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1194,6 +1194,8 @@ static void nohz_csd_func(void *info)
> #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
> +extern bool sched_cfs_bandwidth_active(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
> +
> bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
> {
> int fifo_nr_running;
> @@ -1229,6 +1231,16 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
> if (rq->nr_running > 1)
> return false;
>
> + /*
> + * If there is one task and it has CFS runtime bandwidth constraints
> + * and it's on the cpu now we don't want to stop the tick.
> + */
> + if (sched_feat(HZ_BW) && rq->nr_running == 1 && rq->curr
> + && rq->curr->sched_class == &fair_sched_class && task_on_rq_queued(rq->curr)) {
> + if (sched_cfs_bandwidth_active(task_cfs_rq(rq->curr)))
Actually, something I should have noticed earlier is that this should
probably be hierarchical, right? You need to check every ancestor
cfs_rq, not just the immediate parent. And at that point it probably
makes sense to have sched_cfs_bandwidth_active take a task_struct.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-28 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-27 19:12 [PATCH v2] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use Phil Auld
2023-06-27 21:19 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-28 21:42 ` Benjamin Segall [this message]
2023-06-29 0:53 ` Phil Auld
2023-06-29 17:55 ` Benjamin Segall
2023-06-29 19:06 ` Phil Auld
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=xm26jzvn8ds7.fsf@google.com \
--to=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.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=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--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