[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210203151429.rnbdgt7wyoaz2vui@e107158-lin>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:14:29 +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 1/8] sched/fair: Clean up active balance
nr_balance_failed trickery
Hi Valentin
On 01/28/21 18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> When triggering an active load balance, sd->nr_balance_failed is set to
> such a value that any further can_migrate_task() using said sd will ignore
> the output of task_hot().
>
> This behaviour makes sense, as active load balance intentionally preempts a
> rq's running task to migrate it right away, but this asynchronous write is
> a bit shoddy, as the stopper thread might run active_load_balance_cpu_stop
> before the sd->nr_balance_failed write either becomes visible to the
> stopper's CPU or even happens on the CPU that appended the stopper work.
>
> Add a struct lb_env flag to denote active balancing, and use it in
> can_migrate_task(). Remove the sd->nr_balance_failed write that served the
> same purpose.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 197a51473e0c..0f6a4e58ce3c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7423,6 +7423,7 @@ enum migration_type {
> #define LBF_SOME_PINNED 0x08
> #define LBF_NOHZ_STATS 0x10
> #define LBF_NOHZ_AGAIN 0x20
> +#define LBF_ACTIVE_LB 0x40
>
> struct lb_env {
> struct sched_domain *sd;
> @@ -7608,10 +7609,14 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
>
> /*
> * Aggressive migration if:
> - * 1) destination numa is preferred
> - * 2) task is cache cold, or
> - * 3) too many balance attempts have failed.
> + * 1) active balance
> + * 2) destination numa is preferred
> + * 3) task is cache cold, or
> + * 4) too many balance attempts have failed.
> */
> + if (env->flags & LBF_ACTIVE_LB)
> + return 1;
> +
> tsk_cache_hot = migrate_degrades_locality(p, env);
> if (tsk_cache_hot == -1)
> tsk_cache_hot = task_hot(p, env);
> @@ -9805,9 +9810,6 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> active_load_balance_cpu_stop, busiest,
> &busiest->active_balance_work);
> }
> -
> - /* We've kicked active balancing, force task migration. */
> - sd->nr_balance_failed = sd->cache_nice_tries+1;
This has an impact on future calls to need_active_balance() too, no? We enter
this path because need_active_balance() returned true; one of the conditions it
checks for is
return unlikely(sd->nr_balance_failed > sd->cache_nice_tries+2);
So since we used to reset nr_balanced_failed to cache_nice_tries+1, the above
condition would be false in the next call or two IIUC. But since we remove
that, we could end up here again soon.
Was this intentional?
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
> }
> } else {
> sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
> @@ -9963,7 +9965,8 @@ static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data)
> * @dst_grpmask we need to make that test go away with lying
> * about DST_PINNED.
> */
> - .flags = LBF_DST_PINNED,
> + .flags = LBF_DST_PINNED |
> + LBF_ACTIVE_LB,
> };
>
> schedstat_inc(sd->alb_count);
> --
> 2.27.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists