Date:   Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:29:11 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, 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>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
        Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
        graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
        pjt@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, derkling@...gle.com,
        benbjiang@...cent.com,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
        chris.hyser@...cle.com, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 -tip 08/26] sched/fair: Snapshot the min_vruntime of
 CPUs on force idle

Hi Peter,

I am still working on understanding your approach and will reply soon, but I
just wanted to clarify the question on my approach:

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:47:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 09:43:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> 
> > @@ -4723,6 +4714,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >  			update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* Reset the snapshot if core is no longer in force-idle. */
> > +	if (!fi_before) {
> > +		for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> > +			struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> > +			rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime_fi = rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> So this is the thing that drags vruntime_fi along when (both?) siblings
> are active, right? But should we not do that after pick? Consider 2
> tasks a weight 1 and a weight 10 task, one for each sibling. By syncing
> the vruntime before picking, the cfs_prio_less() loop will not be able
> to distinguish between these two, since they'll both have effectively
> the same lag.

Actually the snapshot I take is local to the rq's business, it is not
core-wide. So there's no core-wide sync in the patch.

So for each rq, I'm assigning the rq's ->min_vruntime_fi to its own
->min_vruntime.

And then later in cfs_prio_less(), I'm normalizing task's ->vruntime with
respect to the ->min_vruntime_fi and using that delta for comparison. So each
->rq is really dealing with its own lag, its not sync'ed.

About why it is to be done before, if we are not in force-idle any more, then
every time we pick, then rq's min_vruntime_fi will be assigned its
->min_vruntime which will be used later, as baseline for that particular rq,
during the cfs_prio_less(). So it has to be done before at least in my
approach. This is no different from not having this patch.

However, if we are in force-idle, then the min_vruntime_fi stays put on all
siblings so that the delta continues to grow on all cpus *since* the force
idle started.

The reason I also do it after is, if the core just entered force idle but
wasn't previously in it, then we take a snapshot at that point and continue
to use that snapshot in future selections as long as the core is in force
idle.

This approach may have some drawbacks but it reduces the task latencies quite
a bit in my testing.

Thoughts?

thanks,

 - Joel


> If however, you syn after pick, then the weight 1 task will have accreud
> far more runtime than the weight 10 task, and consequently the weight 10
> task will have preference when a decision will have to be made.
> 
> (also, if this were the right place, the whole thing should've been part
> of the for_each_cpu() loop right before this)

> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 56bea0decda1..9cae08c3fca1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10686,6 +10686,46 @@ static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
> >  	    __entity_slice_used(&curr->se, MIN_NR_TASKS_DURING_FORCEIDLE))
> >  		resched_curr(rq);
> >  }
> > +
> > +bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
> > +{
> > +	bool samecpu = task_cpu(a) == task_cpu(b);
> > +	struct sched_entity *sea = &a->se;
> > +	struct sched_entity *seb = &b->se;
> > +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqa;
> > +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqb;
> > +	s64 delta;
> > +
> > +	if (samecpu) {
> > +		/* vruntime is per cfs_rq */
> > +		while (!is_same_group(sea, seb)) {
> > +			int sea_depth = sea->depth;
> > +			int seb_depth = seb->depth;
> > +			if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
> > +				sea = parent_entity(sea);
> > +			if (sea_depth <= seb_depth)
> > +				seb = parent_entity(seb);
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime);
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* crosscpu: compare root level se's vruntime to decide priority */
> > +	while (sea->parent)
> > +		sea = sea->parent;
> > +	while (seb->parent)
> > +		seb = seb->parent;
> 
> This seems unfortunate, I think we can do better.
> 
> > +
> > +	cfs_rqa = sea->cfs_rq;
> > +	cfs_rqb = seb->cfs_rq;
> > +
> > +	/* normalize vruntime WRT their rq's base */
> > +	delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime) +
> > +		(s64)(cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi);
> > +out:
> > +	return delta > 0;
> > +}
> 
> 
> How's something like this?
> 
>  - after each pick, such that the pick itself sees the divergence (see
>    above); either:
> 
>     - pull the vruntime_fi forward, when !fi
>     - freeze the vruntime_fi, when newly fi    (A)
> 
>  - either way, update vruntime_fi for each cfs_rq in the active
>    hierachy.
> 
>  - when comparing, and fi, update the vruntime_fi hierachy until we
>    encounter a mark from (A), per doing it during the pick, but before
>    runtime, this guaranteees it hasn't moved since (A).
> 
> XXX, still buggered on SMT>2, imagine having {ta, tb, fi, i} on an SMT4,
> then when comparing any two tasks that do not involve the fi, we should
> (probably) have pulled them fwd -- but we can't actually pull them,
> because then the fi thing would break, mooo.
> 
> 
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -115,19 +115,8 @@ static inline bool prio_less(struct task
>  	if (pa == -1) /* dl_prio() doesn't work because of stop_class above */
>  		return !dl_time_before(a->dl.deadline, b->dl.deadline);
>  
> -	if (pa == MAX_RT_PRIO + MAX_NICE)  { /* fair */
> -		u64 vruntime = b->se.vruntime;
> -
> -		/*
> -		 * Normalize the vruntime if tasks are in different cpus.
> -		 */
> -		if (task_cpu(a) != task_cpu(b)) {
> -			vruntime -= task_cfs_rq(b)->min_vruntime;
> -			vruntime += task_cfs_rq(a)->min_vruntime;
> -		}
> -
> -		return !((s64)(a->se.vruntime - vruntime) <= 0);
> -	}
> +	if (pa == MAX_RT_PRIO + MAX_NICE)	/* fair */
> +		return cfs_prio_less(a, b);
>  
>  	return false;
>  }
> @@ -4642,12 +4631,15 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sc
>  	return cookie_pick;
>  }
>  
> +extern void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p);
> +
>  static struct task_struct *
>  pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *next, *max = NULL;
>  	const struct sched_class *class;
>  	const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
> +	bool fi_before = false;
>  	bool need_sync;
>  	int i, j, cpu;
>  
> @@ -4707,6 +4699,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
>  	need_sync = !!rq->core->core_cookie;
>  	if (rq->core->core_forceidle) {
>  		need_sync = true;
> +		fi_before = true;
>  		rq->core->core_forceidle = false;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -4757,6 +4750,11 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
>  				continue;
>  
>  			rq_i->core_pick = p;
> +			if (rq_i->idle == p && rq_i->nr_running) {
> +				rq->core->core_forceidle = true;
> +				if (!fi_before)
> +					rq->core->core_forceidle_seq++;
> +			}
>  
>  			/*
>  			 * If this new candidate is of higher priority than the
> @@ -4775,6 +4773,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
>  				max = p;
>  
>  				if (old_max) {
> +					rq->core->core_forceidle = false;
>  					for_each_cpu(j, smt_mask) {
>  						if (j == i)
>  							continue;
> @@ -4823,10 +4822,8 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
>  		if (!rq_i->core_pick)
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (is_task_rq_idle(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running &&
> -		    !rq_i->core->core_forceidle) {
> -			rq_i->core->core_forceidle = true;
> -		}
> +		if (!(fi_before && rq->core->core_forceidle))
> +			task_vruntime_update(rq_i, rq_i->core_pick);
>  
>  		if (i == cpu) {
>  			rq_i->core_pick = NULL;
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10686,6 +10686,67 @@ static inline void task_tick_core(struct
>  	    __entity_slice_used(&curr->se, MIN_NR_TASKS_DURING_FORCEIDLE))
>  		resched_curr(rq);
>  }
> +
> +static void se_fi_update(struct sched_entity *se, unsigned int fi_seq, bool forceidle)
> +{
> +	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> +		struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> +
> +		if (forceidle) {
> +			if (cfs_rq->forceidle_seq == fi_seq)
> +				break;
> +			cfs_rq->forceidle_seq = fi_seq;
> +		}
> +
> +		cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +	struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
> +
> +	if (p->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
> +		return;
> +
> +	se_fi_update(se, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, rq->core->core_forceidle);
> +}
> +
> +bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq = task_rq(a);
> +	struct sched_entity *sea = &a->se;
> +	struct sched_entity *seb = &b->se;
> +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqa;
> +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqb;
> +	s64 delta;
> +
> +	SCHED_WARN_ON(task_rq(b)->core != rq->core);
> +
> +	while (sea->cfs_rq->tg != seb->cfs_rq->tg) {
> +		int sea_depth = sea->depth;
> +		int seb_depth = seb->depth;
> +
> +		if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
> +			sea = parent_entity(sea);
> +		if (sea_depth <= seb_depth)
> +			seb = parent_entity(seb);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (rq->core->core_forceidle) {
> +		se_fi_update(sea, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, true);
> +		se_fi_update(seb, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, true);
> +	}
> +
> +	cfs_rqa = sea->cfs_rq;
> +	cfs_rqb = seb->cfs_rq;
> +
> +	/* normalize vruntime WRT their rq's base */
> +	delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime) +
> +		(s64)(cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi);
> +
> +	return delta > 0;
> +}
>  #else
>  static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr) {}
>  #endif
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -522,6 +522,11 @@ struct cfs_rq {
>  	unsigned int		h_nr_running;      /* SCHED_{NORMAL,BATCH,IDLE} */
>  	unsigned int		idle_h_nr_running; /* SCHED_IDLE */
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> +	unsigned int		forceidle_seq;
> +	u64			min_vruntime_fi;
> +#endif
> +
>  	u64			exec_clock;
>  	u64			min_vruntime;
>  #ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> @@ -1061,7 +1066,8 @@ struct rq {
>  	unsigned int		core_task_seq;
>  	unsigned int		core_pick_seq;
>  	unsigned long		core_cookie;
> -	unsigned char		core_forceidle;
> +	unsigned int		core_forceidle;
> +	unsigned int		core_forceidle_seq;
>  #endif
>  };
>  
> @@ -1106,6 +1112,8 @@ static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(s
>  	return &rq->__lock;
>  }
>  
> +bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b);
> +
>  #else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
>  
>  static inline bool sched_core_enabled(struct rq *rq)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists