linux-kernel - [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Reschedule the cfs

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 22:18:06 +0800
From: Chunxin Zang <spring.cxz@...il.com>
To: mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org,
	juri.lelli@...hat.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org,
	bsegall@...gle.com,
	mgorman@...e.de,
	bristot@...hat.com,
	vschneid@...hat.com,
	yu.c.chen@...el.com,
	jameshongleiwang@....com,
	efault@....de,
	kprateek.nayak@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yangchen11@...iang.com,
	zhouchunhua@...iang.com,
	zangchunxin@...iang.com,
	Chunxin Zang <spring.cxz@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Reschedule the cfs_rq when current is ineligible

I found that some tasks have been running for a long enough time and
have become illegal, but they are still not releasing the CPU. This
will increase the scheduling delay of other processes. Therefore, I
tried checking the current process in wakeup_preempt and entity_tick,
and if it is illegal, reschedule that cfs queue.

When RUN_TO_PARITY is enabled, its behavior essentially remains
consistent with the original process. When NO_RUN_TO_PARITY is enabled,
some additional preemptions will be introduced, but not too many.

I have pasted some test results below.
I isolated four cores for testing and ran hackbench in the background,
and observed the test results of cyclictest.

hackbench -g 4 -l 100000000 &
cyclictest --mlockall -D 5m -q

                                 EEVDF      PATCH  EEVDF-NO_PARITY  PATCH-NO_PARITY

                # Min Latencies: 00006      00006      00006      00006
  LNICE(-19)    # Avg Latencies: 00191      00133      00089      00066
                # Max Latencies: 15442      08466      14133      07713

                # Min Latencies: 00006      00010      00006      00006
  LNICE(0)      # Avg Latencies: 00466      00326      00289      00257
                # Max Latencies: 38917      13945      32665      17710

                # Min Latencies: 00019      00053      00010      00013
  LNICE(19)     # Avg Latencies: 37151      25852      18293      23035
                # Max Latencies: 2688299    4643635    426196     425708

I captured and compared the number of preempt occurrences in wakeup_preempt
to see if it introduced any additional overhead.

Similarly, hackbench is used to stress the utilization of four cores to
100%, and the method for capturing the number of PREEMPT occurrences is
referenced from [1].

schedstats                          EEVDF       PATCH   EEVDF-NO_PARITY  PATCH-NO_PARITY  CFS(6.5)
stats.check_preempt_count          5053054     5045388    5018589    5029585
stats.patch_preempt_count          -------     0020495    -------    0700670    -------
stats.need_preempt_count           0570520     0458947    3380513    3116966    1140821

>From the above test results, there is a slight increase in the number of
preempt occurrences in wakeup_preempt. However, the results vary with each
test, and sometimes the difference is not that significant.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230816134059.GC982867@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/T/#m52057282ceb6203318be1ce9f835363de3bef5cb

Signed-off-by: Chunxin Zang <zangchunxin@...iang.com>
Reviewed-by: Chen Yang <yangchen11@...iang.com>

------
Changes in v2:
- Make the logic that determines the current process as ineligible and
  triggers preemption effective only when NO_RUN_TO_PARITY is enabled.
- Update the commit message
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 03be0d1330a6..fa2c512139e5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -745,6 +745,17 @@ int entity_eligible(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
 	return vruntime_eligible(cfs_rq, se->vruntime);
 }
 
+static bool check_entity_need_preempt(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
+{
+	if (sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) && se->vlag != se->deadline)
+		return true;
+
+	if (!sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) && !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se))
+		return true;
+
+	return false;
+}
+
 static u64 __update_min_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, u64 vruntime)
 {
 	u64 min_vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
@@ -5523,6 +5534,9 @@ entity_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr, int queued)
 			hrtimer_active(&rq_of(cfs_rq)->hrtick_timer))
 		return;
 #endif
+
+	if (check_entity_need_preempt(cfs_rq, curr))
+		resched_curr(rq_of(cfs_rq));
 }
 
 
@@ -8343,6 +8357,9 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int
 	cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
 	update_curr(cfs_rq);
 
+	if (check_entity_need_preempt(cfs_rq, se))
+		goto preempt;
+
 	/*
 	 * XXX pick_eevdf(cfs_rq) != se ?
 	 */
-- 
2.34.1