| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c11f04dc-b838-849a-50f3-b9300155a72f@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 20:10:14 +0800
From: chenying <chenying.kernel@...edance.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce rq lock contention in
load_balance()
在 2022/12/14 0:09, Chen Yu 写道:
> On 2022-12-13 at 11:13:24 +0800, chenying wrote:
>> From: chenying <chenying.kernel@...edance.com>
>>
>> When doing newidle load balancing, we may have lock contention on rq->lock
>> while finding the same busiest rq on multiple cpus. However, it is often
>> the case that after the first load balancing, the busiest-rq may not be the
>> busiest anymore. This may lead to pointless waits for locks.
>>
>> Add rq->balancing to quickly check if the busiest rq has been selected
>> in load_balance on other cpu. If it has been selected, clear the busiest
>> rq's
>> cpu from load_balance_mask and then goto refind.
>>
>> The test results show that this patch brings ~30% rq lock contentions
>> reduced and no scheduling latency degradation.
>>
>> unpatched:
>> lock_stat version 0.4
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> class name con-bounces contentions
>> waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces
>> acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> &rq->lock: 25532 26471
>> 0.09 22.86 42250.81 1.60 1232063 6586225
>> 0.05 40.54 10280028.19 1.56
>> ---------
>> &rq->lock 1310 [<0000000081600630>]
>> __schedule+0xa9/0x800
>> &rq->lock 1430 [<00000000754f510d>]
>> try_to_wake_up+0x206/0x710
>> &rq->lock 15426 [<0000000020af4cb5>]
>> update_blocked_averages+0x30/0x6f0
>> &rq->lock 1449 [<00000000dc949053>]
>> _nohz_idle_balance+0x116/0x250
>> ---------
>> &rq->lock 3329 [<00000000754f510d>]
>> try_to_wake_up+0x206/0x710
>> &rq->lock 1241 [<0000000081600630>]
>> __schedule+0xa9/0x800
>> &rq->lock 15480 [<0000000020af4cb5>]
>> update_blocked_averages+0x30/0x6f0
>> &rq->lock 5333 [<000000004969102f>]
>> load_balance+0x3b7/0xe40
>>
> Does the scenario above indicate that one CPU is trying to grab the rq lock
> in either __schedule or try_to_wake_up or update_blocked_averages or
> _nohz_idle_balance.
> but it could be grabbed by another CPU at load_balance+0x3b7/0xe40,
> and this patch is trying to avoid grabbing the rq lock in load_balance()
> as much as possible?
> And it seems that update_blocked_averages is quite contended too.
Yes. This patch is mainly to reduce the meaningless lock waiting at
load_balance+0x3b7/0xe40。
>> patched:
>> lock_stat version 0.4
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> class name con-bounces contentions
>> waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces
>> acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg
>> .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
>>
>> &rq->lock: 17497 18300
>> 0.09 23.15 32152.22 1.76 1137409 6484176
>> 0.05 40.19 10125220.60 1.56
>> ---------
>> &rq->lock 12298 [<000000004314e22f>]
>> update_blocked_averages+0x30/0x6f0
>> &rq->lock 1005 [<000000005b222b90>]
>> __schedule+0xa9/0x800
>> &rq->lock 1271 [<00000000c7a66a89>]
>> try_to_wake_up+0x206/0x710
>> &rq->lock 1380 [<00000000eac23b6b>]
>> load_balance+0x560/0xe70
>> ---------
>> &rq->lock 2962 [<00000000c7a66a89>]
>> try_to_wake_up+0x206/0x710
>> &rq->lock 11844 [<000000004314e22f>]
>> update_blocked_averages+0x30/0x6f0
>> &rq->lock 592 [<0000000032421516>]
>> scheduler_tick+0x4f/0xf0
>> &rq->lock 1243 [<000000005b222b90>]
>> __schedule+0xa9/0x800
>>
>> unpatched:
>> # ./runqlat 60 1
>>
>> usecs : count distribution
>> 0 -> 1 : 1172 | |
>> 2 -> 3 : 210063 |************************ |
>> 4 -> 7 : 337576 |****************************************|
>> 8 -> 15 : 24555 |** |
>> 16 -> 31 : 13598 |* |
>> 32 -> 63 : 779 | |
>> 64 -> 127 : 230 | |
>> 128 -> 255 : 83 | |
>> 256 -> 511 : 54 | |
>> 512 -> 1023 : 62 | |
>> 1024 -> 2047 : 123 | |
>> 2048 -> 4095 : 283 | |
>> 4096 -> 8191 : 1362 | |
>> 8192 -> 16383 : 2775 | |
>> 16384 -> 32767 : 52352 |****** |
>> 32768 -> 65535 : 14 | |
>> 65536 -> 131071 : 140 | |
>>
>> patched:
>> # ./runqlat 60 1
>>
>> usecs : count distribution
>> 0 -> 1 : 1091 | |
>> 2 -> 3 : 205259 |*********************** |
>> 4 -> 7 : 351620 |****************************************|
>> 8 -> 15 : 27812 |*** |
>> 16 -> 31 : 13971 |* |
>> 32 -> 63 : 727 | |
>> 64 -> 127 : 198 | |
>> 128 -> 255 : 103 | |
>> 256 -> 511 : 61 | |
>> 512 -> 1023 : 45 | |
>> 1024 -> 2047 : 108 | |
>> 2048 -> 4095 : 271 | |
>> 4096 -> 8191 : 1342 | |
>> 8192 -> 16383 : 2732 | |
>> 16384 -> 32767 : 49367 |***** |
>> 32768 -> 65535 : 8 | |
>> 65536 -> 131071 : 183 | |
>>
>> Below is the script to run the sysbench workload:
>>
>> #!/bin/bash
>>
>> mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/test1
>> echo 12,14,16,18,20,22 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/test1/cpuset.cpus
>> echo 0 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/test1/cpuset.mems
>>
>> mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/test2
>> echo
>> 0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46 >
>> /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/test2/cpuset.cpus
>> echo 0 > /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset/test2/cpuset.mems
>>
>> cgexec -g cpuset:test1 sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=200000
>> run --num-threads=24 --rate=100 --time=6000 &
>> cgexec -g cpuset:test2 sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=200000
>> run --num-threads=96 --rate=100 --time=6000 &
>>
> May I know how many CPUs are there in the system, 46 * 2 ? So this test is
> to saturate test1 and idle CPUs in test2 try to continously pull task from test1
> but fail due to affinity, which introduce rq lock contention?
Yes. This script is used to create an unbalanced scenario.
Architecture: x86_64
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
Byte Order: Little Endian
Address sizes: 46 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
CPU(s): 48
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-47
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 12
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s): 2
Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
CPU family: 6
Model: 79
Model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz
Stepping: 1
CPU MHz: 1202.860
CPU max MHz: 2900.0000
CPU min MHz: 1200.0000
BogoMIPS: 4400.16
Virtualization: VT-x
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
L2 cache: 256K
L3 cache: 30720K
NUMA node0 CPU(s):
0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46
NUMA node1 CPU(s):
1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29,31,33,35,37,39,41,43,45,47
>> Suggested-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
>> Signed-off-by: chenying <chenying.kernel@...edance.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 1 +
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 +++++++++++
>> kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index daff72f00385..ca4fa84c8751 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -9737,6 +9737,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
>> rq->rd = NULL;
>> rq->cpu_capacity = rq->cpu_capacity_orig =
>> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>> rq->balance_callback = &balance_push_callback;
>> + rq->balancing = false;
> Maybe rq->balancing = 0 because balancing is not bool.
>> rq->active_balance = 0;
>> rq->next_balance = jiffies;
>> rq->push_cpu = 0;
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index e4a0b8bd941c..aeb4fa9ac93a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -10295,6 +10295,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
>> *this_rq,
>> goto out_balanced;
>> }
>>
>> +refind:
>> busiest = find_busiest_queue(&env, group);
>> if (!busiest) {
>> schedstat_inc(sd->lb_nobusyq[idle]);
>> @@ -10303,6 +10304,14 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
>> *this_rq,
>>
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(busiest == env.dst_rq);
>>
>> + if (READ_ONCE(busiest->balancing)) {
> rq->balancing is not protected by lock so there could be race condition,
> but I think it is ok because this could be a trade-off.
>> + __cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu_of(busiest), cpus);
>> + if (cpumask_intersects(sched_group_span(group), cpus))
>> + goto refind;
>> +
>> + goto out_balanced;
>> + }
>> +
>> schedstat_add(sd->lb_imbalance[idle], env.imbalance);
>>
>> env.src_cpu = busiest->cpu;
>> @@ -10323,6 +10332,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
>> *this_rq,
>> more_balance:
>> rq_lock_irqsave(busiest, &rf);
>> update_rq_clock(busiest);
>> + WRITE_ONCE(busiest->balancing, true);
> WRITE_ONCE(busiest->balancing, 1)
>>
>> /*
>> * cur_ld_moved - load moved in current iteration
>> @@ -10338,6 +10348,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
>> *this_rq,
>> * See task_rq_lock() family for the details.
>> */
>>
>> + WRITE_ONCE(busiest->balancing, false);
> WRITE_ONCE(busiest->balancing, 0)
>
> thanks,
> Chenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists