Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 07:54:39 +0800
From:   "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

On 2020/3/3 22:59, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/2/29 7:55, Tim Chen wrote:
>> On 2/26/20 1:54 PM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
>>
>>> rq->curr being NULL can mean that the sibling is idle or forced idle.
>>> In both the cases, I think it makes sense to migrate a task so that it can
>>> compete with the other sibling for a chance to run. This function
>>> can_migrate_task actually only says if this task is eligible and
>>> later part of the code decides whether it is okay to migrate it
>>> based on factors like load and util and capacity. So I think its
>>> fine to declare the task as eligible if the dest core is running
>>> idle. Does this thinking make sense?
>>>
>>> On our testing, it did not show much degradation in performance with
>>> this change. I am reworking the fix by removing the check for
>>> task_est_util. It doesn't seem to be valid to check for util to migrate
>>> the task.
>>>
>>
>> In Aaron's test case, there is a great imbalance in the load on one core
>> where all the grp A tasks are vs the other cores where the grp B tasks are
>> spread around.  Normally, load balancer will move the tasks for grp A.
>>
>> Aubrey's can_migrate_task patch prevented the load balancer to migrate tasks if the core
>> cookie on the target queue don't match.  The thought was it will induce
>> force idle and reduces cpu utilization if we migrate task to it.
>> That kept all the grp A tasks from getting migrated and kept the imbalance
>> indefinitely in Aaron's test case.
>>
>> Perhaps we should also look at the load imbalance between the src rq and
>> target rq.  If the imbalance is big (say two full cpu bound tasks worth
>> of load), we should migrate anyway despite the cookie mismatch.  We are willing
>> to pay a bit for the force idle by balancing the load out more.
>> I think Aubrey's patch on can_migrate_task should be more friendly to
>> Aaron's test scenario if such logic is incorporated.
>>
>> In Vinnet's fix, we only look at the currently running task's weight in
>> src and dst rq.  Perhaps the load on the src and dst rq needs to be considered
>> to prevent too great an imbalance between the run queues?
> 
> We are trying to migrate a task, can we just use cfs.h_nr_running? This signal
> is used to find the busiest run queue as well.

How about this one? the cgroup weight issue seems fixed on my side.

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index f42ceec..90024cf 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1767,6 +1767,8 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct task_numa_env *env,
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
+static inline bool sched_core_cookie_match(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p);
+
 static void task_numa_find_cpu(struct task_numa_env *env,
 				long taskimp, long groupimp)
 {
@@ -5650,6 +5652,44 @@ static struct sched_group *
 find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
 		  int this_cpu, int sd_flag);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
+static inline bool sched_core_cookie_match(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
+{
+	struct rq *src_rq = task_rq(p);
+	bool idle_core = true;
+	int cpu;
+
+	/* Ignore cookie match if core scheduler is not enabled on the CPU. */
+	if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
+		return true;
+
+	if (rq->core->core_cookie == p->core_cookie)
+		return true;
+
+	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(cpu_of(rq))) {
+		if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu)) {
+			idle_core = false;
+			break;
+		}
+	}
+	/*
+	 * A CPU in an idle core is always the best choice for tasks with
+	 * cookies.
+	 */
+	if (idle_core)
+		return true;
+
+	/*
+	 * Ignore cookie match if there is a big imbalance between the src rq
+	 * and dst rq.
+	 */
+	if ((src_rq->cfs.h_nr_running - rq->cfs.h_nr_running) > 1)
+		return true;
+
+	return false;
+}
+#endif
+
 /*
  * find_idlest_group_cpu - find the idlest CPU among the CPUs in the group.
  */
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 7ae6858..8c607e9 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1061,28 +1061,6 @@ static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(struct rq *rq)
 	return &rq->__lock;
 }
 
-static inline bool sched_core_cookie_match(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
-{
-	bool idle_core = true;
-	int cpu;
-
-	/* Ignore cookie match if core scheduler is not enabled on the CPU. */
-	if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
-		return true;
-
-	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(cpu_of(rq))) {
-		if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu)) {
-			idle_core = false;
-			break;
-		}
-	}
-	/*
-	 * A CPU in an idle core is always the best choice for tasks with
-	 * cookies.
-	 */
-	return idle_core || rq->core->core_cookie == p->core_cookie;
-}
-
 extern void queue_core_balance(struct rq *rq);
 
 void sched_core_add(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p);

Powered by blists - more mailing lists