Message-ID: <0c6acab6-5652-948c-8da8-479ff427a9d8@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:07:37 +0800
From:   Song Zhang <zhangsong34@...wei.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC:     <mingo@...hat.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        <keescook@...omium.org>, <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <bsegall@...gle.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>, <bristot@...hat.com>,
        <vschneid@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Introduce priority load balance for CFS



On 2022/11/16 22:38, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 at 08:37, Song Zhang <zhangsong34@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2022/11/15 15:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 17:42, Vincent Guittot
>>> <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 03:51, Song Zhang <zhangsong34@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2022/11/3 17:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 10:20, Song Zhang <zhangsong34@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022/11/3 16:33, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 04:01, Song Zhang <zhangsong34@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2022/11/3 2:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 04:54, Song Zhang <zhangsong34@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This really looks like a v3 of
>>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220810015636.3865248-1-zhangsong34@huawei.com/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please keep versioning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Add a new sysctl interface:
>>>>>>>>>>> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_prio_load_balance_enabled
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to add more sysctl knobs for the scheduler, we even
>>>>>>>>>> removed some. Knob usually means that you want to fix your use case
>>>>>>>>>> but the solution doesn't make sense for all cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, I will remove this knobs later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0: default behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> 1: enable priority load balance for CFS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For co-location with idle and non-idle tasks, when CFS do load balance,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is reasonable to prefer migrating non-idle tasks and migrating idle
>>>>>>>>>>> tasks lastly. This will reduce the interference by SCHED_IDLE tasks
>>>>>>>>>>> as much as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree that it's always the best choice to migrate a non-idle task 1st.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CPU0 has 1 non idle task and CPU1 has 1 non idle task and hundreds of
>>>>>>>>>> idle task and there is an imbalance between the 2 CPUS: migrating the
>>>>>>>>>> non idle task from CPU1 to CPU0 is not the best choice
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the non idle task on CPU1 is running or cache hot, it cannot be
>>>>>>>>> migrated and idle tasks can also be migrated from CPU1 to CPU0. So I
>>>>>>>>> think it does not matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I mean is that migrating non idle tasks first is not a universal
>>>>>>>> win and not always what we want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But migrating online tasks first is mostly a trade-off that
>>>>>>> non-idle(Latency Sensitive) tasks can obtain more CPU time and minimize
>>>>>>> the interference caused by IDLE tasks. I think this makes sense in most
>>>>>>> cases, or you can point out what else I need to think about it ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Testcase:
>>>>>>>>>>> - Spawn large number of idle(SCHED_IDLE) tasks occupy CPUs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by a large number ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Let non-idle tasks compete with idle tasks for CPU time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Using schbench to test non-idle tasks latency:
>>>>>>>>>>> $ ./schbench -m 1 -t 10 -r 30 -R 200
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How many CPUs do you have ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, some details may not be mentioned.
>>>>>>>>> My virtual machine has 8 CPUs running with a schbench process and 5000
>>>>>>>>> idle tasks. The idle task is a while dead loop process below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can you care about latency when you start 10 workers on 8 vCPUs
>>>>>>>> with 5000 non idle threads ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No no no... spawn 5000 idle(SCHED_IDLE) processes not 5000 non-idle
>>>>>>> threads, and with 10 non-idle schbench workers on 8 vCPUs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes spawn 5000 idle tasks but my point remains the same
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am so sorry that I have not received your reply for a long time, and I
>>>>> am still waiting for it anxiously. In fact, migrating non-idle tasks 1st
>>>>> works well in most scenarios, so it maybe possible to add a
>>>>> sched_feat(LB_PRIO) to enable or disable that. Finally, I really hope
>>>>> you can give me some better advice.
>>>>
>>>> I have seen that you posted a v4 5 days ago which is on my list to be reviewed.
>>>>
>>>> My concern here remains that selecting non idle task 1st is not always
>>>> the best choices as for example when you have 1 non idle task per cpu
>>>> and thousands of idle tasks moving around. Then regarding your use
>>>> case, the weight of the 5000 idle threads is around twice more than
>>>> the weight of your non idle bench: sum weight of idle threads is 15k
>>>> whereas the weight of your bench is around 6k IIUC how RPS run. This
>>>> also means that the idle threads will take a significant times of the
>>>> system: 5000 / 7000 ticks. I don't understand how you can care about
>>>> latency in such extreme case and I'm interested to get the real use
>>>> case where you can have such situation.
>>>>
>>>> All that to say that idle task remains cfs task with a small but not
>>>> null weight and we should not make them special other than by not
>>>> preempting at wakeup.
>>>
>>> Also, as mentioned for a previous version, a task with nice prio 19
>>> has a weight of 15 so if you replace the 5k idle threads with 1k cfs
>>> w/ nice prio 19 threads, you will face a similar problem. So you can't
>>> really care only on the idle property of a task
>>>
>>
>> Well, my original idea was to consider interference between tasks of
>> different priorities when doing CFS load balancing to ensure that
>> non-idle tasks get more CPU scheduler time without changing the native
>> CFS load balancing policy.
>>
>> Consider a simple scenario. Assume that CPU 0 has two non-idle tasks
>> whose weight is 1024 * 2 = 2048, also CPU 0 has 1000 idle tasks whose
>> weight is 1K x 15 = 15K. CPU 1 is idle. Therefore, IDLE load balance is
> 
> weight of cfs idle thread is 3, the weight of cfs nice 19 thread is 15

yes, idle weight is 3, thanks for your pointing out.

> 
>> triggered. CPU 1 needs to pull a certain number of tasks from CPU 0. If
>> we do not considerate task priorities and interference between tasks,
>> more than 600 idle tasks on CPU 0 may be migrated to CPU 1. As a result,
>> two non-idle tasks still compete on CPU 0. However, CPU 1 is running
>> with all idle but not non-idle tasks.
>>
>> Let's calculate the percentage of CPU time gained by non-idle tasks in a
>> scheduling period:
>>
>> CPU 1: time_percent(non-idle tasks) = 0
>> CPU 0: time_percent(non-idle tasks) = 2048 * 2 / (2048 + 15000) = 24%
> 
> 2 cfs task nice 0 with 1000 cfs idle tasks on 2 CPUs. The weight of
> the system is:
> 
> 2*1024 + 1000*3 = 5048 or  2524 per CPU
> 
> This means that the cfs nice 0 task should get 1024/(5048) = 20% of
> system time which means 40% of CPUs time.
> 
> This also means that the 2 cfs tasks on CPU0 is a valid configuration
> as they will both have their 40% of CPUs
> 

If you increase idle task number to 3000, the cfs nice 0 task only get 
1024 / (2 * 1024 + 3000 * 3) = 9.3% of system time.

But if we can first migrate one cfs nice 0 task to CPU 1, the cfs nice 0 
task maybe execute quickly on CPU 1, then CPU 1 is got to idle and pulls 
more idle tasks from CPU 0, so that the cfs nice 0 task on CPU 0 can 
also be completed more quickly.

> cfs idle threads have a small weight to be negligible compared to
> "normal" threads so they can't normally balance a system by themself
> but by spawning 1000+ cfs idle threads, you make them not negligible
> anymore. That's the root of your problem. A CPU with only cfs idle
> tasks should be seen unbalanced compared to other CPUs with non idle
> tasks and this is what is happening with small/normal number of cfs
> idle threads
> 

If we do not consider putting all low-priority tasks to a cgroup with a 
minimum cpu shares and only set per-task scheduler policy to SCHED_IDLE, 
the weight of a large number of idle tasks cannot be ignored.

>>
>> On the other hand, if we consider the interference between different
>> task priorities, we change the migration policy to firstly migrate an
>> non-idle task on CPU 0 to CPU 1. Migrating idle tasks on CPU 0 maybe
>> interfered with the non-idle task on CPU 1. So we decide to migrate idle
>> tasks on CPU 0 after non-idle tasks on CPU 1 are completed or exited.
>>
>> Now the percentage of the CPU time obtained by the non-idle tasks in a
>> scheduling period is as follows:
>>
>> CPU 1: time_percent(non-idle tasks) = 1024 / 1024 = 100%
>> CPU 0: time_percent(non-idle tasks) = 1024 / (1024 + 15000) = 6.4%
> 
> But this is unfair for one cfs nice 0 thread and all cfs idle threads
> 

This unfairness may be short-lived, because as soon as CPU 1 go to idle 
again, CPU 1 immediately pulls more idle tasks from CPU 0 to accelerate 
the running of non-idle tasks on CPU 0.

>>
>> Obviously, if load balance migration tasks prefer migrate non-idle tasks
>> and suppress the interference of idle tasks migration on non-idle tasks,
>> the latency of non-idle tasks can be significantly reduced. Although
>> this will cause some idle tasks imbalance between different CPUs and
>> reduce throughput of idle tasks., I think this strategy is feasible in
>> some real-time business scenarios for latency tasks.
> 
> But idle cfs ask remains cfs task and we keep cfs fairness for all threads
> 
> Have you tried to :
> - Increase nice priority of the non idle cfs task so the sum of the
> weight of idle tasks remain a small portion of the total weight ?
> - to put your thousands idle tasks in a cgroup and set cpu.idle for
> this cgroup. This should also ensure that the weight of idle threads
> remains negligible compared to others.
> 
> I have tried both setup in my local system and I have 1 non idle task per CPU
> 
> Regards,
> Vincent
> 

yes I have tried to do them and the results are as expected.

But...as you mentioned above, if all idle tasks are placed in a cgroup 
with the minimum cpu shares or increase nice priority of non-idle tasks, 
the weight of idle tasks is negligible compared with that of non-idle 
tasks, this does not affect the final result.

However, if we try only consider changing the scheduler policy of idle 
tasks to SCHED_IDLE and do not want to modify nice priority of non-idle 
tasks, the weight of idle tasks and the interference on non-idle tasks 
needs to be reconsidered when tasks migration between CPUs.



Best Regards,
Song Zhang

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Song Zhang
>>> .
> .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists