[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230622102216.3b841f80@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:22:16 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in
use
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 09:27:51 -0400
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com> wrote:
> CFS bandwidth limits and NOHZ full don't play well together. Tasks
> can easily run well past their quotas before a remote tick does
> accounting. This leads to long, multi-period stalls before such
> tasks can run again. Currentlyi, when presented with these conflicting
> requirements the scheduler is favoring nohz_full and letting the tick
> be stopped. However, nohz tick stopping is already best-effort, there
> are a number of conditions that can prevent it, whereas cfs runtime
> bandwidth is expected to be enforced.
>
> Make the scheduler favor bandwidth over stopping the tick by setting
> TICK_DEP_BIT_SCHED when the only running task is a cfs task with
> runtime limit enabled.
>
> Add sched_feat HZ_BW (off by default) to control this behavior.
So the tl;dr; is: "If the current task has a bandwidth limit, do not disable
the tick" ?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists