Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBpEkEmWGX=HUEygTg0jWX_-rTFXSgwhBWULM6LDvP44Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:22:15 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix 1 task per CPU

On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 22:17, Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 07/09/18 08:40, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > When CPUs have different capacity because of RT/DL tasks or
> > micro-architecture or max frequency differences, there are situation where
> > the imbalance is not correctly set to migrate waiting task on the idle CPU.
> >
>
> This is essentially always for down migrations (high capacity src CPU to lower
> capacity dst CPU), right?

At least for the UC that I have created

>
> For instance, I've often seen that issue on HiKey960 (4x4 big.LITTLE) where
> if you spawn 8 CPU-hogs you can end up with 5 on the bigs and 3 on the
> LITTLES, but since avg_load scales with the inverse of group_capacity it's
> seen as balanced. I don't recall seeing this problem for low capacity ->
> big capacity migration, especially with the misfit logic that makes this a
> non-problem.
>
> Also, a nit on the commit header: although we've called it "1 task per CPU"
> in the past, it might be more explicit to call it "1 long running task per
> CPU", if just for the sake of clarity for people not directly involved in
> our previous discussions.

In fact it's not only long running task, I can reproduce the problem
with 1 task with a load of 30%

The problem comes from busiest->avg_load <= sds->avg_load ||
local->avg_load >= sds->avg_load

>
> > The UC uses the force_balance case :
> >       if (env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE && group_has_capacity(env, local) &&
> >           busiest->group_no_capacity)
> >               goto force_balance;
> >
> > But calculate_imbalance fails to set the right amount of load to migrate
> > a task because of the special condition:
> >   busiest->avg_load <= sds->avg_load || local->avg_load >= sds->avg_load)
> >
> > Add in fix_small_imbalance, this special case that triggered the force
> > balance in order to make sure that the amount of load to migrate will be
> > enough.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > ---
>
> So we happen to have come up with a (relatively) similar patch for Android
> (see [1]) which also stemmed from the 1 always running task per CPU issue. It
> only applies to SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY sched domains though, and targets
> down-migrations (local->group_capacity < busiest->group_capacity).
>
> I'd argue that we should make it so this kind of imbalance gets detected way
> before we hit fix_small_imbalance(), but until we get there I think we do want
> an extra condition like this.
>
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 309c93f..57b4d83 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -8048,6 +8048,20 @@ void fix_small_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
> >       local = &sds->local_stat;
> >       busiest = &sds->busiest_stat;
> >
> > +     /*
> > +      * There is available capacity in local group and busiest group is
> > +      * overloaded but calculate_imbalance can't compute the amount of load
> > +      * to migrate because they became meaningless because asymetric
>
> What do you mean by 'they'?

The loads

>
> Also, s/because/due to/ on the second "because".

ok

>
> > +      * capacity between group. In such case, we only want to migrate at
> > +      * least one tasks of the busiest group and rely of the average load
> > +      * per task to ensure the migration.
> > +      */
> > +     if (env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE && group_has_capacity(env, local) &&
> > +         busiest->group_no_capacity) {
> > +             env->imbalance = busiest->load_per_task;
> > +             return;
> > +     }
> > +
>
> The condition is an exact copy of the one in that goto force_balance
> path you mention (in find_busiest_group()), is that just a coincidence? If

it's not a coincidence, it's to catch what have been missed by
calculate_imbalance

> not you might want to mention it in the comment.
>
> >       if (!local->sum_nr_running)
> >               local->load_per_task = cpu_avg_load_per_task(env->dst_cpu);
> >       else if (busiest->load_per_task > local->load_per_task)
> >
>
> [1]: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/9fae72e924961f3b32816193fcb56d19c1f644c2%5E%21/#F0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists