[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210203151619.3sa42rqo7eihlfcz@e107158-lin>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:16:19 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] sched/fair: Filter out locally-unsolvable misfit
imbalances
On 01/28/21 18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Consider the following (hypothetical) asymmetric CPU capacity topology,
> with some amount of capacity pressure (RT | DL | IRQ | thermal):
>
> DIE [ ]
> MC [ ][ ]
> 0 1 2 3
>
> | CPU | capacity_orig | capacity |
> |-----+---------------+----------|
> | 0 | 870 | 860 |
> | 1 | 870 | 600 |
> | 2 | 1024 | 850 |
> | 3 | 1024 | 860 |
>
> If CPU1 has a misfit task, then CPU0, CPU2 and CPU3 are valid candidates to
> grant the task an uplift in CPU capacity. Consider CPU0 and CPU3 as
> sufficiently busy, i.e. don't have enough spare capacity to accommodate
> CPU1's misfit task. This would then fall on CPU2 to pull the task.
I think this scenario would be hard in practice, but not impossible. Maybe
gaming could push the system that hard.
>
> This currently won't happen, because CPU2 will fail
>
> capacity_greater(capacity_of(CPU2), sg->sgc->max_capacity)
>
> in update_sd_pick_busiest(), where 'sg' is the [0, 1] group at DIE
> level. In this case, the max_capacity is that of CPU0's, which is at this
> point in time greater than that of CPU2's. This comparison doesn't make
> much sense, given that the only CPUs we should care about in this scenario
> are CPU1 (the CPU with the misfit task) and CPU2 (the load-balance
> destination CPU).
>
> Aggregate a misfit task's load into sgs->group_misfit_task_load only if
> env->dst_cpu would grant it a capacity uplift. Separately track whether a
> sched_group contains a misfit task to still classify it as
> group_misfit_task and not pick it as busiest group when pulling from a
> lower-capacity CPU (which is the current behaviour and prevents
> down-migration).
>
> Since find_busiest_queue() can now iterate over CPUs with a higher capacity
> than the local CPU's, add a capacity check there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ef44474b8fbf..0ac2f876b86f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5765,6 +5765,12 @@ static unsigned long capacity_of(int cpu)
> return cpu_rq(cpu)->cpu_capacity;
> }
>
> +/* Is CPU a's capacity noticeably greater than CPU b's? */
> +static inline bool cpu_capacity_greater(int a, int b)
> +{
> + return capacity_greater(capacity_of(a), capacity_of(b));
> +}
> +
> static void record_wakee(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> /*
> @@ -8093,7 +8099,8 @@ struct sg_lb_stats {
> unsigned int group_weight;
> enum group_type group_type;
> unsigned int group_asym_packing; /* Tasks should be moved to preferred CPU */
> - unsigned long group_misfit_task_load; /* A CPU has a task too big for its capacity */
> + unsigned long group_misfit_task_load; /* Task load that can be uplifted */
> + int group_has_misfit_task; /* A CPU has a task too big for its capacity */
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
> unsigned int nr_numa_running;
> unsigned int nr_preferred_running;
> @@ -8364,7 +8371,7 @@ group_type group_classify(unsigned int imbalance_pct,
> if (sgs->group_asym_packing)
> return group_asym_packing;
>
> - if (sgs->group_misfit_task_load)
> + if (sgs->group_has_misfit_task)
> return group_misfit_task;
>
> if (!group_has_capacity(imbalance_pct, sgs))
> @@ -8450,11 +8457,21 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
> continue;
>
> /* Check for a misfit task on the cpu */
> - if (sd_has_asym_cpucapacity(env->sd) &&
> - sgs->group_misfit_task_load < rq->misfit_task_load) {
> - sgs->group_misfit_task_load = rq->misfit_task_load;
> - *sg_status |= SG_OVERLOAD;
> - }
> + if (!sd_has_asym_cpucapacity(env->sd) ||
> + !rq->misfit_task_load)
> + continue;
> +
> + *sg_status |= SG_OVERLOAD;
> + sgs->group_has_misfit_task = true;
> +
> + /*
> + * Don't attempt to maximize load for misfit tasks that can't be
> + * granted a CPU capacity uplift.
> + */
> + if (cpu_capacity_greater(env->dst_cpu, i))
> + sgs->group_misfit_task_load = max(
> + sgs->group_misfit_task_load,
> + rq->misfit_task_load);
nit: missing curly braces around the if.
> }
>
> /* Check if dst CPU is idle and preferred to this group */
> @@ -8504,7 +8521,7 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
> /* Don't try to pull misfit tasks we can't help */
> if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity) &&
> sgs->group_type == group_misfit_task &&
> - (!capacity_greater(capacity_of(env->dst_cpu), sg->sgc->max_capacity) ||
> + (!sgs->group_misfit_task_load ||
> sds->local_stat.group_type != group_has_spare))
> return false;
>
> @@ -9464,15 +9481,18 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env *env,
> case migrate_misfit:
> /*
> * For ASYM_CPUCAPACITY domains with misfit tasks we
> - * simply seek the "biggest" misfit task.
> + * simply seek the "biggest" misfit task we can
> + * accommodate.
> */
> + if (!cpu_capacity_greater(env->dst_cpu, i))
> + continue;
Both this hunk and the one above mean we will end up searching harder to pull
the task into the right cpu taking actual capacity into account. Which is
a good improvement.
Reviewed-by: Qais Yousef <qais.youesf@....com>
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
> +
> if (rq->misfit_task_load > busiest_load) {
> busiest_load = rq->misfit_task_load;
> busiest = rq;
> }
>
> break;
> -
> }
> }
>
> --
> 2.27.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists