Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 18:54:27 -0500
From:   Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@...omium.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, parth@...ux.ibm.com,
        qais.yousef@....com, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
        valentin.schneider@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
        tj@...nel.org, qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        joshdon@...gle.com, timj@....org, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched/fair: Add latency list

Hi Vincent,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:10 PM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Youssef,
>
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 at 03:05, Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 9:39 AM Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add a rb tree for latency sensitive entities so we can schedule the most
> > > sensitive one first even when it failed to preempt current at wakeup or
> > > when it got quickly preempted by another entity of higher priority.
> > >
> > > In order to keep fairness, the latency is used once at wakeup to get a
> > > minimum slice and not during the following scheduling slice to prevent
> > > long running entity to got more running time than allocated to his nice
> > > priority.
> > >
> > > The rb tree nebales to cover the last corner case where latency
> > > sensitive entity can't got schedule quickly after the wakeup.
> > >
> > > hackbench -l 10000 -g $group &
> > > cyclictest --policy other -D 5 -q -n
> > >         latency 0           latency -20
> > > group   min  avg    max     min  avg    max
> > > 0       17    19     29      17   18     30
> > > 1       65   306   7149      64   83    208
> > > 4       50   395  15731      56   80    271
> > > 8       56   781  41548      54   80    301
> > > 16      60  1392  87237      59   86    490
> > >
> > > group = 0 means that hackbench is not running.
> > >
> > > Both avg and max are significantly improved with nice latency -20. If we
> > > add the histogram parameters to get details of latency, we have :
> > >
> > > hackbench -l 10000 -g 16 &
> > > cyclictest --policy other -D 5 -q -n  -H 20000 --histfile data.txt
> > >               latency 0    latency -20
> > > Min Latencies:    60           61
> > > Avg Latencies:  1077           86
> > > Max Latencies: 87311          444
> > > 50% latencies:    92           85
> > > 75% latencies:   554           90
> > > 85% latencies:  1019           93
> > > 90% latencies:  1346           96
> > > 95% latencies:  5400          100
> > > 99% latencies: 19044          110
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > The ability to boost the latency sensitivity of a task seems very
> > interesting. I have been playing around with these changes and have
> > some observations.
> >
> > I tried 2 bursty tasks affinitized to the same CPU. The tasks sleep
> > for 1ms and run for 10ms in a loop. I first tried it without adjusting
> > the latency_nice value and took perf sched traces:
>
> The CPU is overloaded almost all the time as it can't run the 2 tasks
> (2*10ms every 11ms)
>
> >
> > latency_test:7040     |   2447.137 ms |        8 | avg:   6.546 ms |
> > max:  10.674 ms | max start:   353.809487 s | max end:   353.820161 s
> > latency_test:7028     |   2454.777 ms |        7 | avg:   4.494 ms |
> > max:  10.609 ms | max start:   354.804386 s | max end:   354.814995 s
> >
> > Everything looked as expected, for a 5s run they had similar runtime
> > and latency.
> >
> > I then adjusted one task to have a latency_nice of -20 (pid 8614
> > below) and took another set of traces:
> >
> > latency_test:8618     |   1845.534 ms |      131 | avg:   9.764 ms |
> > max:  10.686 ms | max start:  1405.737905 s | max end:  1405.748592 s
> > latency_test:8614     |   3033.635 ms |       16 | avg:   3.559 ms |
> > max:  10.467 ms | max start:  1407.594751 s | max end:  1407.605218 s
> >
> > The task with -20 latency_nice had significantly more runtime. The
> > average latency was improved but the max roughly stayed the same. As
> > expected the one with latency_nice value of 0 experienced more
> > switches, but so did the one with latency_nice of -20.
>
> Your results look unexpected because the vruntime of the tasks is not
> modified. So I can imagine that the thread with the low latency runs
> first up to the offset at the beg of the test but then they should
> switch regularly. I have tried a similar test with a modified rt-app
> and the result seems ok. I have a small difference but not the
> difference that you see.
>
> Could you share more details about your setup ? I'm going to try to
> reproduce your sequence

I was using an intel core i7 with this frequency details:
CPU MHz:                         4200.000
CPU max MHz:                  4800.0000
CPU min MHz:                   400.0000

This is a snippet of the test I was using:

struct sched_attr attr;
memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(struct sched_attr));
attr.size = sizeof(struct sched_attr);
attr.sched_latency_nice = nice_latency;
attr.sched_flags = SCHED_FLAG_LATENCY_NICE;

// set nice latency value
int res = syscall(__NR_sched_setattr, 0, &attr, 0);

while(1){
  // wake up every ms
  usleep(1000);
  for(int i = 0; i < 40000000; i++){}
}

>
> >
> > Also tried running the same test but instead of using latency nice I
> > adjusted the nice value as a comparison. In that case one task had a
> > nice of -5 and the other was 0.
> >
> > nice_test:25219       |   1216.839 ms |      242 | avg:  10.295 ms |
> > max:  11.927 ms | max start:  5877.881279 s | max end:  5877.893206 s
> > nice_test:25235       |   3711.788 ms |        6 | avg:   1.026 ms |
> > max:   6.143 ms | max start:  5875.603741 s | max end:  5875.609883 s
> >
> > As expected the one with a nice value of -5 had more runtime but also
> > had better latency numbers than in the previous case of using
> > latency_nice.
> >
> > I also tried a similar test with 3 bursty tasks instead of two. In
> > this case all tasks had a latency_nice of 0:
> >
> > latency_test:11467    |   1641.131 ms |      161 | avg:  17.489 ms |
> > max:  21.011 ms | max start:  1542.656275 s | max end:  1542.677286 s
> > latency_test:11463    |   1644.809 ms |      161 | avg:  11.994 ms |
> > max:  25.012 ms | max start:  1545.657776 s | max end:  1545.682788 s
> > latency_test:11478    |   1643.211 ms |      160 | avg:  11.465 ms |
> > max:  21.012 ms | max start:  1546.159026 s | max end:  1546.180038 s
> >
> > Next I tried two tasks with a latency_nice of 0 and a third one had a
> > latency_nice of -20 (pid 11763 below):
> >
> > latency_test:11763    |   1645.482 ms |      159 | avg:  19.634 ms |
> > max:  31.016 ms | max start:  1623.834862 s | max end:  1623.865877 s
> > latency_test:11750    |   1644.276 ms |      259 | avg:   9.985 ms |
> > max:  21.012 ms | max start:  1623.953921 s | max end:  1623.974933 s
> > latency_test:11747    |   1642.745 ms |      262 | avg:   9.079 ms |
> > max:  25.013 ms | max start:  1620.980435 s | max end:  1621.005447 s
> >
> > In this case it seemed like the runtime was not affected by the
> > latency_nice value, but strangely the task with the latency nice of
> > -20 had a worse average and max latency than the other two. The
> > context switch times are also increased from the previous case.
> >
> > Have we considered an approach where the task that is marked as
> > latency sensitive gets a boosted nice value when it sleeps and is
> > either scaled down exponentially as it runs, or immediately reset to
> > its default when it runs for one tick?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Youssef
> >
> >
> > >  include/linux/sched.h |  2 +
> > >  kernel/sched/fair.c   | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  kernel/sched/sched.h  |  1 +
> > >  3 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > index a74cad08e91e..0b92674e3664 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > @@ -547,6 +547,8 @@ struct sched_entity {
> > >         /* For load-balancing: */
> > >         struct load_weight              load;
> > >         struct rb_node                  run_node;
> > > +       struct rb_node                  latency_node;
> > > +       unsigned int                    on_latency;
> > >         struct list_head                group_node;
> > >         unsigned int                    on_rq;
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index e524e892d118..1a72f34136d8 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -664,7 +664,77 @@ struct sched_entity *__pick_last_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > >
> > >         return __node_2_se(last);
> > >  }
> > > +#endif
> > >
> > > +/**************************************************************
> > > + * Scheduling class tree data structure manipulation methods:
> > > + * for latency
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool latency_before(struct sched_entity *a,
> > > +                               struct sched_entity *b)
> > > +{
> > > +       return (s64)(a->vruntime + a->latency_offset - b->vruntime - b->latency_offset) < 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#define __latency_node_2_se(node) \
> > > +       rb_entry((node), struct sched_entity, latency_node)
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool __latency_less(struct rb_node *a, const struct rb_node *b)
> > > +{
> > > +       return latency_before(__latency_node_2_se(a), __latency_node_2_se(b));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Enqueue an entity into the latency rb-tree:
> > > + */
> > > +static void __enqueue_latency(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > > +{
> > > +
> > > +       /* Only latency sensitive entity can be added to the list */
> > > +       if (se->latency_offset >= 0)
> > > +               return;
> > > +
> > > +       if (se->on_latency)
> > > +               return;
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * An execution time less than sysctl_sched_min_granularity means that
> > > +        * the entity has been preempted by a higher sched class or an entity
> > > +        * with higher latency constraint.
> > > +        * Put it back in the list so it gets a chance to run 1st during the
> > > +        * next slice.
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP)) {
> > > +               u64 delta_exec = se->sum_exec_runtime - se->prev_sum_exec_runtime;
> > > +
> > > +               if (delta_exec >= sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
> > > +                       return;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       rb_add_cached(&se->latency_node, &cfs_rq->latency_timeline, __latency_less);
> > > +       se->on_latency = 1;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void __dequeue_latency(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > > +{
> > > +       if (se->on_latency) {
> > > +               rb_erase_cached(&se->latency_node, &cfs_rq->latency_timeline);
> > > +               se->on_latency = 0;
> > > +       }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static struct sched_entity *__pick_first_latency(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct rb_node *left = rb_first_cached(&cfs_rq->latency_timeline);
> > > +
> > > +       if (!left)
> > > +               return NULL;
> > > +
> > > +       return __latency_node_2_se(left);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
> > >  /**************************************************************
> > >   * Scheduling class statistics methods:
> > >   */
> > > @@ -4455,8 +4525,10 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > >         check_schedstat_required();
> > >         update_stats_enqueue_fair(cfs_rq, se, flags);
> > >         check_spread(cfs_rq, se);
> > > -       if (!curr)
> > > +       if (!curr) {
> > >                 __enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> > > +               __enqueue_latency(cfs_rq, se, flags);
> > > +       }
> > >         se->on_rq = 1;
> > >
> > >         if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1) {
> > > @@ -4542,8 +4614,10 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > >
> > >         clear_buddies(cfs_rq, se);
> > >
> > > -       if (se != cfs_rq->curr)
> > > +       if (se != cfs_rq->curr) {
> > >                 __dequeue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> > > +               __dequeue_latency(cfs_rq, se);
> > > +       }
> > >         se->on_rq = 0;
> > >         account_entity_dequeue(cfs_rq, se);
> > >
> > > @@ -4631,6 +4705,7 @@ set_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > >                  */
> > >                 update_stats_wait_end_fair(cfs_rq, se);
> > >                 __dequeue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> > > +               __dequeue_latency(cfs_rq, se);
> > >                 update_load_avg(cfs_rq, se, UPDATE_TG);
> > >         }
> > >
> > > @@ -4669,7 +4744,7 @@ static struct sched_entity *
> > >  pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
> > >  {
> > >         struct sched_entity *left = __pick_first_entity(cfs_rq);
> > > -       struct sched_entity *se;
> > > +       struct sched_entity *latency, *se;
> > >
> > >         /*
> > >          * If curr is set we have to see if its left of the leftmost entity
> > > @@ -4711,6 +4786,12 @@ pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
> > >                 se = cfs_rq->last;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > +       /* Check for latency sensitive entity waiting for running */
> > > +       latency = __pick_first_latency(cfs_rq);
> > > +       if (latency && (latency != se) &&
> > > +           wakeup_preempt_entity(latency, se) < 1)
> > > +               se = latency;
> > > +
> > >         return se;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > @@ -4734,6 +4815,7 @@ static void put_prev_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *prev)
> > >                 update_stats_wait_start_fair(cfs_rq, prev);
> > >                 /* Put 'current' back into the tree. */
> > >                 __enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, prev);
> > > +               __enqueue_latency(cfs_rq, prev, 0);
> > >                 /* in !on_rq case, update occurred at dequeue */
> > >                 update_load_avg(cfs_rq, prev, 0);
> > >         }
> > > @@ -11717,6 +11799,7 @@ static void set_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool first)
> > >  void init_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > >  {
> > >         cfs_rq->tasks_timeline = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
> > > +       cfs_rq->latency_timeline = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
> > >         u64_u32_store(cfs_rq->min_vruntime, (u64)(-(1LL << 20)));
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >         raw_spin_lock_init(&cfs_rq->removed.lock);
> > > @@ -12025,8 +12108,15 @@ int sched_group_set_latency(struct task_group *tg, s64 latency)
> > >
> > >         for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > >                 struct sched_entity *se = tg->se[i];
> > > +               struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
> > > +               struct rq_flags rf;
> > > +
> > > +               rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
> > >
> > > +               __dequeue_latency(se->cfs_rq, se);
> > >                 WRITE_ONCE(se->latency_offset, latency);
> > > +
> > > +               rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         mutex_unlock(&shares_mutex);
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > index a15fb955092c..76bca172585c 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > @@ -599,6 +599,7 @@ struct cfs_rq {
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > >         struct rb_root_cached   tasks_timeline;
> > > +       struct rb_root_cached   latency_timeline;
> > >
> > >         /*
> > >          * 'curr' points to currently running entity on this cfs_rq.
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
> > >
> > >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists