Date:	Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:56:00 +0900
From:	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu controller can't provide fair CPU time for each group

Hi, Ingo

Could you see the following problems?

Regards
Miao

on 2009-11-3 11:26, Miao Xie wrote:
> Hi, Peter.
> 
> I found two problems about cpu controller:
> 1) cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU time to groups when the tasks
>    attached into those groups were bound to the same logic CPU.
> 2) cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU time to groups when shares of
>    each group <= 2 * nr_cpus.
> 
> The detail is following:
> 1) The first one is that cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU time to
>    groups when the tasks attached into those groups were bound to the
>    same logic CPU.
> 
>    The reason is that there is something with the computing of the per
>    cpu shares.
> 
>    on my test box with 16 logic CPU, I did the following manipulation:
>    a. create 2 cpu controller groups.
>    b. attach a task into one group and 2 tasks into the other.
>    c. bind three tasks to the same logic cpu.
>             +--------+     +--------+
>             | group1 |     | group2 |
>             +--------+     +--------+
>                 |              |
>    CPU0      Task A      Task B & Task C
> 
>    The following is the reproduce steps:
>    # mkdir /dev/cpuctl
>    # mount -t cgroup -o cpu,noprefix cpuctl /dev/cpuctl
>    # mkdir /dev/cpuctl/1
>    # mkdir /dev/cpuctl/2
>    # cat /dev/zero > /dev/null &
>    # pid1=$!
>    # echo $pid1 > /dev/cpuctl/1/tasks
>    # taskset -p -c 0 $pid1
>    # cat /dev/zero > /dev/null &
>    # pid2=$!
>    # echo $pid2 > /dev/cpuctl/2/tasks
>    # taskset -p -c 0 $pid2
>    # cat /dev/zero > /dev/null &
>    # pid3=$!
>    # echo $pid3 > /dev/cpuctl/2/tasks
>    # taskset -p -c 0 $pid3
> 
>    some time later, I found the the task in the group1 got the 35% CPU 
> time not
>    50% CPU time. It was very strange that this result against the expected.
> 
>    this problem was caused by the wrong computing of the per cpu shares.
>    According to the design of the cpu controller, the shares of each cpu
>    controller group will be divided for every CPU by the workload of each
>    logic CPU.
>       cpu[i] shares = group shares * CPU[i] workload / sum(CPU workload)
> 
>    But if the CPU has no task, cpu controller will pretend there is one of
>    average load, usually this average load is 1024, the load of the task 
> whose
>    nice is zero. So in the test, the shares of group1 on CPU0 is:
>       1024 * (1 * 1024) / ((1 * 1024 + 15 * 1024)) = 64
>    and the shares of group2 on CPU0 is:
>       1024 * (2 * 1024) / ((2 * 1024 + 15 * 1024)) = 120
>    The scheduler of the CPU0 provided CPU time to each group by the shares
>    above. The bug occured.
> 
> 2) The second problem is that cpu controller didn't provide fair CPU 
> time to
>    groups when shares of each group <= 2 * nr_cpus
> 
>    The reason is that per cpu shares was set to MIN_SHARES(=2) if shares of
>    each group <= 2 * nr_cpus.
> 
>    on the test box with 16 logic CPU, we do the following test:
>    a. create two cpu controller groups
>    b. attach 32 tasks into each group
>    c. set shares of the first group to 16, the other to 32
>             +--------+     +--------+
>             | group1 |     | group2 |
>             +--------+     +--------+
>             |shares=16     |shares=32
>                 |              |
>              16 Tasks       32 Tasks
> 
>    some time later, the first group got 50% CPU time, not 33%. It also 
> was very
>    strange that this result against the expected.
> 
>    It is because the shares of cpuctl group was small, and there is many 
> logic
>    CPU. So per cpu shares that was computed was less than MIN_SHARES, 
> and then
>    was set to MIN_SHARES.
> 
>    Maybe 16 and 32 is not used usually. We can set a usual number(such 
> as 1024)
>    to avoid this problem on my box. But the number of CPU on a machine will
>    become more and more in the future. If the number of CPU is greater 
> than 512,
>    this bug will occur even we set shares of group to 1024. This is a usual
>    number. At this rate, the usual user will feel strange.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists