From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4FF487BF for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:05:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710176732; cv=none; b=Sv5DPQi+a2Lzz2PMIksYTzjYWX3M+MdEomL3ficJtBg+F15nZCCZvhQjioCo69zR0NjX78Mobi5AljrLTgFKFZ7EJxzr/8tJcpkG1s0wUCljnO4tZ0XhmFiA6OJ14YbCzPjLfuDjAg2N/hO9rA8ujwGfwtmGqxmOI5mNRtIE1/U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710176732; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XNwbXKaCLGvCbpxIvSjj9i4O3/8QvDmG0N51zcg49XU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lpIH556bu4d/2LnXycmdO+KvHR9/i78AyTfYofqr/v2MbGhIii4pE5P92vAYPhNsWw10akiYrAog2aSW3ahLk1VVBuPusr5ocLMDC4G78T8hpZqmHZLn88N6MfcHyVw/7XQ8e47UTsDDRW9kpCG+UsoOc+MVXarHWLHqO3lMpZI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=UltoYNgI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="UltoYNgI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710176730; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ofx1nXrTDjwWTrrBkspXHarb2XIic0gZXzZbExCDCt4=; b=UltoYNgIrkqupEomPKTgHkXVcatmK86S40SZZMdQu3TsLXwxDJ9BLKQWljOS6CGGwegBn0 Qnw2ZjqpxBzDutQZXXlA8jTNndR0GGGTT5ldbgJxZbJJpTeH70PHXchCLBBXXqmEhS0nAE UsCXxSP+32F4WnepNmzbpIuUH0duZnk= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-588-ekpEsRb5O82fucKXHQCQug-1; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:05:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ekpEsRb5O82fucKXHQCQug-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-33e97ba772bso583490f8f.1 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710176727; x=1710781527; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ofx1nXrTDjwWTrrBkspXHarb2XIic0gZXzZbExCDCt4=; b=G9IMEwaMGw0RqraHbC1S6dx2q6tIrWtXaoB9YCSSGlLfFIFhCYng5uUuWqXR5x7qru oTf2OgTkeiDsW6UJ/VqxOLfD675lrGbTxsSM7ZBoLQUN89rsWpH/GlIXBTtyNRq6EK8z hHLei6SUnsPwU68qQRqKcOYi7AKh2Eta9J9qFlpgq6pzIrtuwbfRcbcjFQPCC6i3hRUQ rVIspgImzoNdrHmq+AIV3BcsvdJK4hod2TxaOcYmRTxNGJkaSmbhjqVx6OYg7dorWZZg 1xuiMPWDc3w3XtRpIPGghYJTzi1LX8f/3LhbQxLQL/97dxr7uksKyHnN6ZY4qF3iBZup 0ISA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXgWsuy1MBM0ivA8BhCK2bUGwuc48cJnXxcJSUOkQzeqtcui19tWcJJMrIgJ277l9gr7Hheie3gYczjdkG0QTZCRT1306Ef X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzlRjo0j3e2pXNWkld5aXowEnSBnocodlXYo79dkgh/NzEEMNHk FopJe4NP7Xlx9LQoF/OGaZVJD+m1ylb7YrMrWBOPjEyPz4NVhYLF4Nkh4XerkpF1DfS2Gov+okm WBJ4FjJAU+Fma+6h+bKpbHj3vJ8QPZT7T1Lk1vpKnQdgORtMjqBDZiQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:230:b0:33e:96b7:af6d with SMTP id l16-20020a056000023000b0033e96b7af6dmr1971475wrz.6.1710176727052; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:05:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHkykAXhh3ZDBHaIBqo4LqQhaHhS1QTgvnZKN/euSPkgltlwWOCucmDgB5XoQsM841Kz8WUQQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:230:b0:33e:96b7:af6d with SMTP id l16-20020a056000023000b0033e96b7af6dmr1971451wrz.6.1710176726496; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com ([2.52.134.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b3-20020a05600003c300b0033e239040d8sm7123545wrg.84.2024.03.11.10.05.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:05:21 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Tobias Huschle Cc: Jason Wang , Abel Wu , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: Re: EEVDF/vhost regression (bisected to 86bfbb7ce4f6 sched/fair: Add lag based placement) Message-ID: <20240311130446-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <42870.123121305373200110@us-mta-641.us.mimecast.lan> <20231213061719-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <25485.123121307454100283@us-mta-18.us.mimecast.lan> <20231213094854-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20231214021328-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <92916.124010808133201076@us-mta-622.us.mimecast.lan> <20240121134311-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <07974.124020102385100135@us-mta-501.us.mimecast.lan> <20240201030341-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <89460.124020106474400877@us-mta-475.us.mimecast.lan> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <89460.124020106474400877@us-mta-475.us.mimecast.lan> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 12:47:39PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:08:07AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 08:38:43AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 01:44:32PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:14:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > -------- Summary -------- > > > > > > In my (non-vhost experience) opinion the way to go would be either > > > replacing the cond_resched with a hard schedule or setting the > > > need_resched flag within vhost if the a data transfer was successfully > > > initiated. It will be necessary to check if this causes problems with > > > other workloads/benchmarks. > > > > Yes but conceptually I am still in the dark on whether the fact that > > periodically invoking cond_resched is no longer sufficient to be nice to > > others is a bug, or intentional. So you feel it is intentional? > > I would assume that cond_resched is still a valid concept. > But, in this particular scenario we have the following problem: > > So far (with CFS) we had: > 1. vhost initiates data transfer > 2. kworker is woken up > 3. CFS gives priority to woken up task and schedules it > 4. kworker runs > > Now (with EEVDF) we have: > 0. In some cases, kworker has accumulated negative lag > 1. vhost initiates data transfer > 2. kworker is woken up > -3a. EEVDF does not schedule kworker if it has negative lag > -4a. vhost continues running, kworker on same CPU starves > -- > -3b. EEVDF schedules kworker if it has positive or no lag > -4b. kworker runs > > In the 3a/4a case, the kworker is given no chance to set the > necessary flag. The flag can only be set by another CPU now. > The schedule of the kworker was not caused by cond_resched, but > rather by the wakeup path of the scheduler. > > cond_resched works successfully once the load balancer (I suppose) > decides to migrate the vhost off to another CPU. In that case, the > load balancer on another CPU sets that flag and we are good. > That then eventually allows the scheduler to pick kworker, but very > late. Are we going anywhere with this btw? > > I propose a two patch series then: > > > > patch 1: in this text in Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst > > > > If you're doing longer computations: first think userspace. If you > > **really** want to do it in kernel you should regularly check if you need > > to give up the CPU (remember there is cooperative multitasking per CPU). > > Idiom:: > > > > cond_resched(); /* Will sleep */ > > > > > > replace cond_resched -> schedule > > > > > > Since apparently cond_resched is no longer sufficient to > > make the scheduler check whether you need to give up the CPU. > > > > patch 2: make this change for vhost. > > > > WDYT? > > For patch 1, I would like to see some feedback from Peter (or someone else > from the scheduler maintainers). > For patch 2, I would prefer to do some more testing first if this might have > an negative effect on other benchmarks. > > I also stumbled upon something in the scheduler code that I want to verify. > Maybe a cgroup thing, will check that out again. > > I'll do some more testing with the cond_resched->schedule fix, check the > cgroup thing and wait for Peter then. > Will get back if any of the above yields some results. > > > > > -- > > MST > > > >