Message-ID: <1635E7EB-5FD5-42DA-8AA5-61450E415779@vmware.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:52:24 +0000
From:   Ankit Jain <ankitja@...are.com>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" 
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux@...musvillemoes.dk" <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        "qyousef@...alina.io" <qyousef@...alina.io>,
        "pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
        "joshdon@...gle.com" <joshdon@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        "vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>,
        Srinidhi Rao <srinidhir@...are.com>,
        Vasavi Sirnapalli <vsirnapalli@...are.com>,
        Vamsi Krishna Brahmajosyula <vbrahmajosyula@...are.com>,
        Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com>,
        "srivatsa@...il.mit.edu" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] cpumask: Randomly distribute the tasks within
 affinity mask



> On 12-Oct-2023, at 5:46 AM, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> !! External Email
> 
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 12:49:25PM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
>> commit 46a87b3851f0 ("sched/core: Distribute tasks within affinity masks")
>> and commit 14e292f8d453 ("sched,rt: Use cpumask_any*_distribute()")
>> introduced the logic to distribute the tasks at initial wakeup on cpus
>> where load balancing works poorly or disabled at all (isolated cpus).
>> 
>> There are cases in which the distribution of tasks
>> that are spawned on isolcpus does not happen properly.
>> In production deployment, initial wakeup of tasks spawn from
>> housekeeping cpus to isolcpus[nohz_full cpu] happens on first cpu
>> within isolcpus range instead of distributed across isolcpus.
>> 
>> Usage of distribute_cpu_mask_prev from one processes group,
>> will clobber previous value of another or other groups and vice-versa.
>> 
>> When housekeeping cpus spawn multiple child tasks to wakeup on
>> isolcpus[nohz_full cpu], using cpusets.cpus/sched_setaffinity(),
>> distribution is currently performed based on per-cpu
>> distribute_cpu_mask_prev counter.
>> At the same time, on housekeeping cpus there are percpu
>> bounded timers interrupt/rcu threads and other system/user tasks
>> would be running with affinity as housekeeping cpus. In a real-life
>> environment, housekeeping cpus are much fewer and are too much loaded.
>> So, distribute_cpu_mask_prev value from these tasks impacts
>> the offset value for the tasks spawning to wakeup on isolcpus and
>> thus most of the tasks end up waking up on first cpu within the
>> isolcpus set.
>> 
>> Steps to reproduce:
>> Kernel cmdline parameters:
>> isolcpus=2-5 skew_tick=1 nohz=on nohz_full=2-5
>> rcu_nocbs=2-5 rcu_nocb_poll idle=poll irqaffinity=0-1
>> 
>> * pid=$(echo $$)
>> * taskset -pc 0 $pid
>> * cat loop-normal.c
>> int main(void)
>> {
>>        while (1)
>>                ;
>>        return 0;
>> }
>> * gcc -o loop-normal loop-normal.c
>> * for i in {1..50}; do ./loop-normal & done
>> * pids=$(ps -a | grep loop-normal | cut -d' ' -f5)
>> * for i in $pids; do taskset -pc 2-5 $i ; done
>> 
>> Expected output:
>> * All 50 “loop-normal” tasks should wake up on cpu2-5
>> equally distributed.
>> * ps -eLo cpuid,pid,tid,ppid,cls,psr,cls,cmd | grep "^    [2345]"
>> 
>> Actual output:
>> * All 50 “loop-normal” tasks got woken up on cpu2 only
>> 
>> Analysis:
>> There are percpu bounded timer interrupt/rcu threads activities
>> going on every few microseconds on housekeeping cpus, exercising
>> find_lowest_rq() -> cpumask_any_and_distribute()/cpumask_any_distribute()
>> So, per cpu variable distribute_cpu_mask_prev for housekeeping cpus
>> keep on getting set to housekeeping cpus. Bash/docker processes
>> are sharing same per cpu variable as they run on housekeeping cpus.
>> Thus intersection of clobbered distribute_cpu_mask_prev and
>> new mask(isolcpus) return always first cpu within the new mask(isolcpus)
>> in accordance to the logic mentioned in commits above.
>> 
>> Fix the issue by using random cores out of the applicable CPU set
>> instead of relying on distribute_cpu_mask_prev.
>> 
>> Fixes: 46a87b3851f0 ("sched/core: Distribute tasks within affinity masks")
>> Fixes: 14e292f8d453 ("sched,rt: Use cpumask_any*_distribute()")
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ankit Jain <ankitja@...are.com>
>> ---
>> lib/cpumask.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/lib/cpumask.c b/lib/cpumask.c
>> index a7fd02b5ae26..95a7c1b40e95 100644
>> --- a/lib/cpumask.c
>> +++ b/lib/cpumask.c
>> @@ -155,45 +155,47 @@ unsigned int cpumask_local_spread(unsigned int i, int node)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpumask_local_spread);
>> 
>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, distribute_cpu_mask_prev);
>> -
>> /**
>>  * cpumask_any_and_distribute - Return an arbitrary cpu within src1p & src2p.
>>  * @src1p: first &cpumask for intersection
>>  * @src2p: second &cpumask for intersection
>>  *
>> - * Iterated calls using the same srcp1 and srcp2 will be distributed within
>> - * their intersection.
>> + * Iterated calls using the same srcp1 and srcp2 will be randomly distributed
>> + * within their intersection.
>>  *
>>  * Returns >= nr_cpu_ids if the intersection is empty.
>>  */
> 
> This has been discussed a while ago, and the bottomline is that 'any'
> is not the same as 'random'. In practice, it means that getting 'any'
> cpu is cheaper than getting randomized one.
> 

Thank you Yury for this clarification.
My objective behind this change was distribution of tasks on cpu
with no load balancing(i.e. isolcpus) even at some 
higher cost(“random” logic).
However, I realize that distribution on isolcpus should probably
be addressed in userspace.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists