Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:31:02 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tobias Huschle <huschle@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Luis Machado <luis.machado@....com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	nd <nd@....com>, borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: EEVDF/vhost regression (bisected to 86bfbb7ce4f6 sched/fair: Add
 lag based placement)

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 12:51:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:50:05PM +0200, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > It took me a while, but I was able to figure out why EEVDF behaves 
> > different then CFS does. I'm still waiting for some official confirmation
> > of my assumptions but it all seems very plausible to me.
> > 
> > Leaving aside all the specifics of vhost and kworkers, a more general
> > description of the scenario would be as follows:
> > 
> > Assume that we have two tasks taking turns on a single CPU. 
> > Task 1 does something and wakes up Task 2.
> > Task 2 does something and goes to sleep.
> > And we're just repeating that.
> > Task 1 and task 2 only run for very short amounts of time, i.e. much 
> > shorter than a regular time slice (vhost = task1, kworker = task2).
> > 
> > Let's further assume, that task 1 runs longer than task 2. 
> > In CFS, this means, that vruntime of task 1 starts to outrun the vruntime
> > of task 2. This means that vruntime(task2) < vruntime(task1). Hence, task 2
> > always gets picked on wake up because it has the smaller vruntime. 
> > In EEVDF, this would translate to a permanent positive lag, which also 
> > causes task 2 to get consistently scheduled on wake up.
> > 
> > Let's now assume, that ocassionally, task 2 runs a little bit longer than
> > task 1. In CFS, this means, that task 2 can close the vruntime gap by a
> > bit, but, it can easily remain below the value of task 1. Task 2 would 
> > still get picked on wake up.
> > With EEVDF, in its current form, task 2 will now get a negative lag, which
> > in turn, will cause it not being picked on the next wake up.
> 
> Right, so I've been working on changes where tasks will be able to
> 'earn' credit when sleeping. Specifically, keeping dequeued tasks on the
> runqueue will allow them to burn off negative lag. Once they get picked
> again they are guaranteed to have zero (or more) lag. If by that time
> they've not been woken up again, they get dequeued with 0-lag.
> 
> (placement with 0-lag will ensure eligibility doesn't inhibit the pick,
> but is not sufficient to ensure a pick)
> 
> However, this alone will not be sufficient to get the behaviour you
> want. Notably, even at 0-lag the virtual deadline will still be after
> the virtual deadline of the already running task -- assuming they have
> equal request sizes.
> 
> That is, IIUC, you want your task 2 (kworker) to always preempt task 1
> (vhost), right? So even if tsak 2 were to have 0-lag, placing it would
> be something like:
> 
> t1      |---------<    
> t2        |---------<
> V    -----|-----------------------------
> 
> So t1 has started at | with a virtual deadline at <. Then a short
> while later -- V will have advanced a little -- it wakes t2 with 0-lag,
> but as you can observe, its virtual deadline will be later than t1's and
> as such it will never get picked, even though they're both eligible.
> 
> > So, it seems we have a change in the level of how far the both variants look 
> > into the past. CFS being willing to take more history into account, whereas
> > EEVDF does not (with update_entity_lag setting the lag value from scratch, 
> > and place_entity not taking the original vruntime into account).
> >
> > All of this can be seen as correct by design, a task consumes more time
> > than the others, so it has to give way to others. The big difference
> > is now, that CFS allowed a task to collect some bonus by constantly using 
> > less CPU time than others and trading that time against ocassionally taking
> > more CPU time. EEVDF could do the same thing, by allowing the accumulation
> > of positive lag, which can then be traded against the one time the task
> > would get negative lag. This might clash with other EEVDF assumptions though.
> 
> Right, so CFS was a pure virtual runtime based scheduler, while EEVDF
> considers both virtual runtime (for eligibility, which ties to fairness)
> but primarily virtual deadline (for timeliness).
> 
> If you want to make EEVDF force pick a task by modifying vruntime you
> have to place it with lag > request (slice) such that the virtual
> deadline of the newly placed task is before the already running task,
> yielding both eligibility and earliest deadline.
> 
> Consistently placing tasks with such large (positive) lag will affect
> fairness though, they're basically always runnable, so barring external
> throttling, they'll starve you.
> 
> > The patch below fixes the degredation, but is not at all aligned with what 
> > EEVDF wants to achieve, but it helps as an indicator that my hypothesis is
> > correct.
> > 
> > So, what does this now mean for the vhost regression we were discussing?
> > 
> > 1. The behavior of the scheduler changed with regard to wake-up scenarios.
> > 2. vhost in its current form relies on the way how CFS works by assuming 
> >    that the kworker always gets scheduled.
> 
> How does it assume this? Also, this is a performance issue, not a
> correctness issue, right?
> 
> > I would like to argue that it therefore makes sense to reconsider the vhost
> > implementation to make it less dependent on the internals of the scheduler.
> 
> I think I'll propose the opposite :-) Much of the problems we have are
> because the scheduler simply doesn't know anything and we're playing a
> mutual guessing game.
> 
> The trick is finding things to tell the scheduler it can actually do
> something with though..
> 
> > As proposed earlier in this thread, I see two options:
> > 
> > 1. Do an explicit schedule() after every iteration across the vhost queues
> > 2. Set the need_resched flag after writing to the socket that would trigger
> >    eventfd and the underlying kworker
> 
> Neither of these options will get you what you want. Specifically in the
> example above, t1 doing an explicit reschedule will result in t1 being
> picked.
> 
> > Both options would make sure that the vhost gives up the CPU as it cannot
> > continue anyway without the kworker handling the event. Option 1 will give
> > up the CPU regardless of whether something was found in the queues, whereas
> > option 2 would only give up the CPU if there is.
> 
> Incorrect, neither schedule() nor marking things with TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> (which has more issues) will make t2 run. In that scenario you have to
> make t1 block, such that t2 is the only possible choice. As long as you
> keep t1 on the runqueue, it will be the most eligible pick at that time.
> 
> Now, there is an easy option... but I hate to mention it because I've
> spend a lifetime telling people not to use it (for really good reasons):
> yield().
> 
> With EEVDF yield() will move the virtual deadline ahead by one request.
> That is, given the above scenario:
> 
> t1      |---------<    
> t2        |---------<
> V    -----|-----------------------------
> 
> t1 doing yield(), would result in:
> 
> t1      |-------------------<    
> t2        |---------<
> V    -----|-----------------------------
> 
> And at that point, you'll find that all of a sudden t2 will be picked.
> On the flip side, you might find that when t2 completes another task is
> more likely to run than return to t1 -- because of that elongated
> deadline. Ofc. if t1 and t2 are the only tasks on the CPU this doesn't
> matter.
> 
> > It shall be noted, that we encountered similar behavior when running some
> > fio benchmarks. From a brief glance at the code, I was seeing similar
> > intentions: Loop over queues, then trigger an action through some event
> > mechanism. Applying the same patch as mentioned above also fixes this issue.
> > 
> > It could be argued, that this is still something that needs to be somehow
> > addressed by the scheduler since it might affect others as well and there 
> > are in fact patches coming in. Will they address our issue here? Not sure yet.
> 
> > On the other hand, it might just be beneficial to make vhost more resilient
> > towards the scheduler's algorithm by not relying on a certain behavior in
> > the wakeup path.
> 
> So the 'advantage' of EEVDF over CFS is that it has 2 parameters to play
> with: weight and slice. Slice being the new toy in town.
> 
> Specifically in your example you would ideally have task 2 have a
> shorter slice. Except of course its a kworker and you can't very well
> set a kworker with a short slice because you never know wth it will end
> up doing.
> 
> I'm still wondering why exactly it is imperative for t2 to preempt t1.
> Is there some unexpressed serialization / spin-waiting ?


I am not sure but I think the point is that t2 is a kworker. It is
much cheaper to run it right now when we are already in the kernel
than return to userspace, let it run for a bit then interrupt it
and then run t2.
Right, Tobias?

-- 
MST

Powered by blists - more mailing lists