Message-Id: <20210120122715.29493-1-changhuaixin@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:27:11 +0800
From:   Huaixin Chang <changhuaixin@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     changhuaixin@...ux.alibaba.com
Cc:     bsegall@...gle.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        pauld@...head.com, peterz@...radead.org, pjt@...gle.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, shanpeic@...ux.alibaba.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] sched/fair: Burstable CFS bandwidth controller

Changelog v2:
1. Fix an issue reported by test robot.
2. Rewriting docs. Appreciate any further suggestions or help.

The CFS bandwidth controller limits CPU requests of a task group to
quota during each period. However, parallel workloads might be bursty
so that they get throttled. And they are latency sensitive at the same
time so that throttling them is undesired.

Scaling up period and quota allows greater burst capacity. But it might
cause longer stuck till next refill. We introduce "burst" to allow
accumulating unused quota from previous periods, and to be assigned when
a task group requests more CPU than quota during a specific period. Thus
allowing CPU time requests as long as the average requested CPU time is
below quota on the long run. The maximum accumulation is capped by burst
and is set 0 by default, thus the traditional behaviour remains.

A huge drop of 99th tail latency from more than 500ms to 27ms is seen for
real java workloads when using burst. Similar drops are seen when
testing with schbench too:

	echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/test/cgroup.procs
	echo 700000 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/test/cpu.cfs_quota_us
	echo 100000 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/test/cpu.cfs_period_us
	echo 400000 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/test/cpu.cfs_burst_us

	# The average CPU usage is around 500%, which is 200ms CPU time
	# every 40ms.
	./schbench -m 1 -t 30 -r 60 -c 10000 -R 500

	Without burst:

	Latency percentiles (usec)
	50.0000th: 7
	75.0000th: 8
	90.0000th: 9
	95.0000th: 10
	*99.0000th: 933
	99.5000th: 981
	99.9000th: 3068
	min=0, max=20054
	rps: 498.31 p95 (usec) 10 p99 (usec) 933 p95/cputime 0.10% p99/cputime 9.33%

	With burst:

	Latency percentiles (usec)
	50.0000th: 7
	75.0000th: 8
	90.0000th: 9
	95.0000th: 9
	*99.0000th: 12
	99.5000th: 13
	99.9000th: 19
	min=0, max=406
	rps: 498.36 p95 (usec) 9 p99 (usec) 12 p95/cputime 0.09% p99/cputime 0.12%

How much workloads with benefit from burstable CFS bandwidth control
depends on how bursty and how latency sensitive they are.

Previously, Cong Wang and Konstantin Khlebnikov proposed similar
feature:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180522062017.5193-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/157476581065.5793.4518979877345136813.stgit@buzz/

This time we present more latency statistics and handle overflow while
accumulating.

Huaixin Chang (4):
  sched/fair: Introduce primitives for CFS bandwidth burst
  sched/fair: Make CFS bandwidth controller burstable
  sched/fair: Add cfs bandwidth burst statistics
  sched/fair: Add document for burstable CFS bandwidth control

 Documentation/scheduler/sched-bwc.rst |  49 +++++++++++--
 include/linux/sched/sysctl.h          |   2 +
 kernel/sched/core.c                   | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 kernel/sched/fair.c                   |  58 +++++++++++++---
 kernel/sched/sched.h                  |   9 ++-
 kernel/sysctl.c                       |  18 +++++
 6 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

-- 
2.14.4.44.g2045bb6

Powered by blists - more mailing lists