| 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: <CAKfTPtCEUZxV9zMpguf7RKs6njLsJJUmz8WadyS4ryr+Fqca1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:53:11 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Luis Machado <luis.machado@....com>
Cc: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
wuyun.abel@...edance.com, youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/24] sched/uclamg: Handle delayed dequeue
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 11:22, Luis Machado <luis.machado@....com> wrote:
>
> On 8/22/24 09:19, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 15:34, Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> Sorry for bombarding this thread in the last couple of days. I'm seeing
> >> several issues in the latest tip/sched/core after these patches landed.
> >>
> >> What I'm now seeing seems to be an unbalanced call of util_est. First, I applied
> >
> > I also see a remaining util_est for idle rq because of an unbalance
> > call of util_est_enqueue|dequeue
> >
>
> I can confirm issues with the utilization values and frequencies being driven
> seemingly incorrectly, in particular for little cores.
>
> What I'm seeing with the stock series is high utilization values for some tasks
> and little cores having their frequencies maxed out for extended periods of
> time. Sometimes for 5+ or 10+ seconds, which is excessive as the cores are mostly
> idle. But whenever certain tasks get scheduled there, they have a very high util
> level and so the frequency is kept at max.
>
> As a consequence this drives up power usage.
>
> I gave Hongyan's draft fix a try and observed a much more reasonable behavior for
> the util numbers and frequencies being used for the little cores. With his fix,
> I can also see lower energy use for my specific benchmark.
The main problem is that the util_est of a delayed dequeued task
remains on the rq and keeps the rq utilization high and as a result
the frequency higher than needed.
The below seems to works for me and keep sync the enqueue/dequeue of
uti_test with the enqueue/dequeue of the task as if de dequeue was not
delayed
Another interest is that we will not try to migrate a delayed dequeue
sleeping task that doesn't actually impact the current load of the cpu
and as a result will not help in the load balance. I haven't yet fully
checked what would happen with hotplug
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index fea057b311f6..0970bcdc889a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6944,11 +6944,6 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
task_struct *p, int flags)
int rq_h_nr_running = rq->cfs.h_nr_running;
u64 slice = 0;
- if (flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED) {
- requeue_delayed_entity(se);
- return;
- }
-
/*
* The code below (indirectly) updates schedutil which looks at
* the cfs_rq utilization to select a frequency.
@@ -6957,6 +6952,11 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
task_struct *p, int flags)
*/
util_est_enqueue(&rq->cfs, p);
+ if (flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED) {
+ requeue_delayed_entity(se);
+ return;
+ }
+
/*
* If in_iowait is set, the code below may not trigger any cpufreq
* utilization updates, so do it here explicitly with the IOWAIT flag
@@ -9276,6 +9276,8 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p,
struct lb_env *env)
lockdep_assert_rq_held(env->src_rq);
+ if (p->se.sched_delayed)
+ return 0;
/*
* We do not migrate tasks that are:
* 1) throttled_lb_pair, or
>
>
> >> the following diff to warn against util_est != 0 when no tasks are on
> >> the queue:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/752ae417c02b9277ca3ec18893747c54dd5f277f.1724245193.git.hongyan.xia2@arm.com/
> >>
> >> Then, I'm reliably seeing warnings on my Juno board during boot in
> >> latest tip/sched/core.
> >>
> >> If I do the same thing to util_est just like what you did in this uclamp
> >> patch, like this:
> >
> > I think that the solution is simpler than your proposal and we just
> > need to always call util_est_enqueue() before the
> > requeue_delayed_entity
> >
> > @@ -6970,11 +6970,6 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
> > task_struct *p, int flags)
> > int rq_h_nr_running = rq->cfs.h_nr_running;
> > u64 slice = 0;
> >
> > - if (flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED) {
> > - requeue_delayed_entity(se);
> > - return;
> > - }
> > -
> > /*
> > * The code below (indirectly) updates schedutil which looks at
> > * the cfs_rq utilization to select a frequency.
> > @@ -6983,6 +6978,11 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
> > task_struct *p, int flags)
> > */
> > util_est_enqueue(&rq->cfs, p);
> >
> > + if (flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED) {
> > + requeue_delayed_entity(se);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > /*
> > * If in_iowait is set, the code below may not trigger any cpufreq
> > * utilization updates, so do it here explicitly with the IOWAIT flag
> >
> >
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index 574ef19df64b..58aac42c99e5 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -6946,7 +6946,7 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
> >> task_struct *p, int flags)
> >>
> >> if (flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED) {
> >> requeue_delayed_entity(se);
> >> - return;
> >> + goto util_est;
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> @@ -6955,7 +6955,6 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
> >> task_struct *p, int flags)
> >> * Let's add the task's estimated utilization to the cfs_rq's
> >> * estimated utilization, before we update schedutil.
> >> */
> >> - util_est_enqueue(&rq->cfs, p);
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * If in_iowait is set, the code below may not trigger any cpufreq
> >> @@ -7050,6 +7049,9 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
> >> task_struct *p, int flags)
> >> assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> >>
> >> hrtick_update(rq);
> >> +util_est:
> >> + if (!p->se.sched_delayed)
> >> + util_est_enqueue(&rq->cfs, p);
> >> }
> >>
> >> static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se);
> >> @@ -7173,7 +7175,8 @@ static int dequeue_entities(struct rq *rq, struct
> >> sched_entity *se, int flags)
> >> */
> >> static bool dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
> >> int flags)
> >> {
> >> - util_est_dequeue(&rq->cfs, p);
> >> + if (!p->se.sched_delayed)
> >> + util_est_dequeue(&rq->cfs, p);
> >>
> >> if (dequeue_entities(rq, &p->se, flags) < 0) {
> >> if (!rq->cfs.h_nr_running)
> >>
> >> which is basically enqueuing util_est after enqueue_task_fair(),
> >> dequeuing util_est before dequeue_task_fair() and double check
> >> p->se.delayed_dequeue, then the unbalanced issue seems to go away.
> >>
> >> Hopefully this helps you in finding where the problem could be.
> >>
> >> Hongyan
> >>
> >> On 27/07/2024 11:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> Delayed dequeue has tasks sit around on the runqueue that are not
> >>> actually runnable -- specifically, they will be dequeued the moment
> >>> they get picked.
> >>>
> >>> One side-effect is that such a task can get migrated, which leads to a
> >>> 'nested' dequeue_task() scenario that messes up uclamp if we don't
> >>> take care.
> >>>
> >>> Notably, dequeue_task(DEQUEUE_SLEEP) can 'fail' and keep the task on
> >>> the runqueue. This however will have removed the task from uclamp --
> >>> per uclamp_rq_dec() in dequeue_task(). So far so good.
> >>>
> >>> However, if at that point the task gets migrated -- or nice adjusted
> >>> or any of a myriad of operations that does a dequeue-enqueue cycle --
> >>> we'll pass through dequeue_task()/enqueue_task() again. Without
> >>> modification this will lead to a double decrement for uclamp, which is
> >>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Luis Machado <luis.machado@....com>
> >>> Reported-by: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/sched/core.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >>> @@ -1676,6 +1676,9 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct
> >>> if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
> >>> return;
> >>>
> >>> + if (p->se.sched_delayed)
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
> >>> uclamp_rq_inc_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -1700,6 +1703,9 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec(struct
> >>> if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
> >>> return;
> >>>
> >>> + if (p->se.sched_delayed)
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
> >>> uclamp_rq_dec_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -1979,8 +1985,12 @@ void enqueue_task(struct rq *rq, struct
> >>> psi_enqueue(p, (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP) && !(flags & ENQUEUE_MIGRATED));
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p);
> >>> p->sched_class->enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Must be after ->enqueue_task() because ENQUEUE_DELAYED can clear
> >>> + * ->sched_delayed.
> >>> + */
> >>> + uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p);
> >>>
> >>> if (sched_core_enabled(rq))
> >>> sched_core_enqueue(rq, p);
> >>> @@ -2002,6 +2012,10 @@ inline bool dequeue_task(struct rq *rq,
> >>> psi_dequeue(p, flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Must be before ->dequeue_task() because ->dequeue_task() can 'fail'
> >>> + * and mark the task ->sched_delayed.
> >>> + */
> >>> uclamp_rq_dec(rq, p);
> >>> return p->sched_class->dequeue_task(rq, p, flags);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists