[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABk29NtSmXVCvkdpymeam7AYmXhZy2JLYLPFTdKpk5g6AN1-zg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:25:09 -0800
From: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:47 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> preempt_disable() -- through rq->lock -- also holds off rcu. Strictly
> speaking this here is superfluous. But if you want it as an annotation,
> that's fine I suppose.
Yep, I purely added this as extra annotation for future readers.
> Ideally we'd first queue all the remotes and then process local, but
> given how all this is organized that doesn't seem trivial to arrange.
>
> Maybe have this function return false when local and save that cfs_rq in
> a local var to process again later, dunno, that might turn messy.
Maybe something like this? Apologies for inline diff formatting.
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 012ec9d03811..100dae6023da 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5520,12 +5520,15 @@ static bool distribute_cfs_runtime(struct
cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
u64 runtime, remaining = 1;
bool throttled = false;
+ int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ struct cfs_rq *local_unthrottle = NULL;
+ struct rq *rq;
+ struct rq_flags rf;
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(cfs_rq, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq,
throttled_list) {
- struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
- struct rq_flags rf;
+ rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
if (!remaining) {
throttled = true;
@@ -5556,14 +5559,36 @@ static bool distribute_cfs_runtime(struct
cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
cfs_rq->runtime_remaining += runtime;
/* we check whether we're throttled above */
- if (cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0)
- unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(cfs_rq);
+ if (cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0) {
+ if (cpu_of(rq) != this_cpu ||
+ SCHED_WARN_ON(local_unthrottle)) {
+ unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(cfs_rq);
+ } else {
+ local_unthrottle = cfs_rq;
+ }
+ } else {
+ throttled = true;
+ }
next:
rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
}
rcu_read_unlock();
+ /*
+ * We prefer to stage the async unthrottles of all the remote cpus
+ * before we do the inline unthrottle locally. Note that
+ * unthrottle_cfs_rq_async() on the local cpu is actually synchronous,
+ * but it includes extra WARNs to make sure the cfs_rq really is
+ * still throttled.
+ */
+ if (local_unthrottle) {
+ rq = cpu_rq(this_cpu);
+ rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
+ unthrottle_cfs_rq_async(local_unthrottle);
+ rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
+ }
+
return throttled;
}
Note that one change we definitely want is the extra setting of
throttled = true in the case that cfs_rq->runtime_remaining <= 0, to
catch the case where we run out of runtime to distribute on the last
entity in the list.
> > +
> > + /* Already enqueued */
> > + if (SCHED_WARN_ON(!list_empty(&cfs_rq->throttled_csd_list)))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + list_add_tail(&cfs_rq->throttled_csd_list, &rq->cfsb_csd_list);
> > +
> > + smp_call_function_single_async(cpu_of(rq), &rq->cfsb_csd);
>
> Hurmph.. so I was expecting something like:
>
> first = list_empty(&rq->cfsb_csd_list);
> list_add_tail(&cfs_rq->throttled_csd_list, &rq->cfsb_csd_list);
> if (first)
> smp_call_function_single_async(cpu_of(rq), &rq->cfsb_csd);
>
> But I suppose I'm remembering the 'old' version. I don't think it is
> broken as written. There's a very narrow window where you'll end up
> sending a second IPI for naught, but meh.
The CSD doesn't get unlocked until right before we call the func().
But you're right that that's a (very) narrow window for an extra IPI.
Please feel free to modify the patch with that diff if you like.
>
> > +}
>
> Let me go queue this thing, we can always improve upon matters later.
Thanks! Please add at least the extra assignment of 'throttled = true'
from the diff above, but feel free to squash both the diffs if it
makes sense to you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists