[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z1hgWWpGjqFNxtjg@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:08:01 +0530
From: Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com, sshegde@...ux.ibm.com, srikar@...ux.ibm.com,
vineethr@...ux.ibm.com, zhangqiao22@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix CPU bandwidth limit bypass during CPU
hotplug
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 03:43:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 03:53:47PM +0530, Vishal Chourasia wrote:
> > CPU controller limits are not properly enforced during CPU hotplug
> > operations, particularly during CPU offline. When a CPU goes offline,
> > throttled processes are unintentionally being unthrottled across all CPUs
> > in the system, allowing them to exceed their assigned quota limits.
> >
> > Consider below for an example,
> >
> > Assigning 6.25% bandwidth limit to a cgroup
> > in a 8 CPU system, where, workload is running 8 threads for 20 seconds at
> > 100% CPU utilization, expected (user+sys) time = 10 seconds.
> >
> > $ cat /sys/fs/cgroup/test/cpu.max
> > 50000 100000
> >
> > $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20 // non-hotplug case
> > real 20.00 s
> > user 10.81 s // intended behaviour
> > sys 0.00 s
> >
> > $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20 // hotplug case
> > real 20.00 s
> > user 14.43 s // Workload is able to run for 14 secs
> > sys 0.00 s // when it should have only run for 10 secs
> >
> > During CPU hotplug, scheduler domains are rebuilt and cpu_attach_domain
> > is called for every active CPU to update the root domain. That ends up
> > calling rq_offline_fair which un-throttles any throttled hierarchies.
> >
> > Unthrottling should only occur for the CPU being hotplugged to allow its
> > throttled processes to become runnable and get migrated to other CPUs.
> >
> > With current patch applied,
> > $ ./ebizzy -t 8 -S 20 // hotplug case
> > real 21.00 s
> > user 10.16 s // intended behaviour
> > sys 0.00 s
> >
> > Note: hotplug operation (online, offline) was performed in while(1) loop
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vishal Chourasia <vishalc@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Tested-by: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> Did you mean this?
Yes, essentially this.
I will post another version.
>ยทยท
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 2c4ebfc82917..b6afb8337e73 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6696,6 +6696,9 @@ static void __maybe_unused unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs(struct rq *rq)
>
> lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
>
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu_of(rq), cpu_active_mask))
> + return;
> +
> /*
> * The rq clock has already been updated in the
> * set_rq_offline(), so we should skip updating
What should be done for the case when the hotplugged CPU's cfs_rq has
plenty of runtime_remaining?
I have three choices
1) set it to 1 (no change required in current code)
2) skip reset, runtime_remaining will not be touched (similar to current patch)
3) return excess runtime to the global runtime (will require taking lock)
Thanks
- vishalc
Powered by blists - more mailing lists