Message-ID: <53082ec4-d862-6135-8d22-44dd2742156a@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:48:39 +0800
From: Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
 juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
 bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hao Jia <jiahao1@...iang.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/core: Prioritize migrating eligible tasks in
 sched_balance_rq()



On 2025/1/16 19:26, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 12:55, Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2025/1/15 17:28, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 09:55, Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2025/1/14 16:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 04:18, Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025/1/14 00:40, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 at 10:21, Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Friendly ping...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2024/12/23 17:14, Hao Jia wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Hao Jia <jiahao1@...iang.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the PLACE_LAG scheduling feature is enabled and
>>>>>>>>> dst_cfs_rq->nr_queued is greater than 1, if a task is
>>>>>>>>> ineligible (lag < 0) on the source cpu runqueue, it will
>>>>>>>>> also be ineligible when it is migrated to the destination
>>>>>>>>> cpu runqueue. Because we will keep the original equivalent
>>>>>>>>> lag of the task in place_entity(). So if the task was
>>>>>>>>> ineligible before, it will still be ineligible after
>>>>>>>>> migration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So in sched_balance_rq(), we prioritize migrating eligible
>>>>>>>>> tasks, and we soft-limit ineligible tasks, allowing them
>>>>>>>>> to migrate only when nr_balance_failed is non-zero to
>>>>>>>>> avoid load-balancing trying very hard to balance the load.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you explain why you think it's better to balance eligible tasks
>>>>>>> in priority and potentially skip a load balance ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In place_entity(), we maintain the task's original equivalent lag, even
>>>>>> if we migrate the task to dst_rq, this does not change its eligibility
>>>>>> attribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but you don't answer the question why it's better to select an
>>>>> eligible task vs a non eligible task.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When there are multiple tasks on src_rq, and the dst_cpu has some
>>>>>> runnable tasks, migrating ineligible tasks to dst_rq will not allow them
>>>>>> to run. Therefore, such task migration is inefficient. We should
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it inefficient ? load balance is about evenly balancing the
>>>>> number of tasks or the load between CPUs, it never says that the newly
>>>>> migrated task should run immediately
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My initial thought is that when we need to migrate some tasks during
>>>> load balancing, at the current point in time, migrating ineligible tasks
>>>> to dst_cpu means they definitely cannot run there. Therefore, I prefer
>>>> to keep them on src_cpu to reduce the overhead of dequeueing and
>>>> enqueueing ineligible tasks.
>>>
>>> Sorry but I still don't get why it's important and would make a
>>> difference. They are all runnable but ineligible tasks got more
>>> runtime than other at that point in time so there is no real
>>> difference
>>
>>
>> I adopt a lazy strategy for ineligible tasks. At the current point in
>> time, even if we migrate ineligible tasks to the dst CPU, they still
>> have to wait on the dst CPU until they become eligible. We do not see
>> clear benefits from migrating ineligible tasks, but their dequeueing and
>> enqueueing would instead incur overhead.
> 
> But your explanation doesn't make sense.
> Not migrating an ineligible task only make sense for delayed_dequeue
> tasks because they don't really want to run but only exhaust their lag
> but this is already taken into account by
> 61b82dfb6b7e ("sched/fair: Do not try to migrate delayed dequeue task")
> 

Thank you for your suggestion.

Yes, as you mentioned, this commit 61b82dfb6b7e ("sched/fair: Do not try 
to migrate delayed dequeue task") reduces the migration of 
delayed_dequeue tasks, but it doesn't work for ineligible RUNNING tasks 
and when the migration_type is migrate_load.


> Did you run your benchmark on top of this change ?

My previous benchmark tests were based on the torvalds/linux/master 
branch, which does not include commit 61b82dfb6b7e ("sched/fair: Do not 
try to migrate delayed dequeue task"). I will include this commit and 
retest on my machine after my leave ends.

Thanks,
Hao

> 
>>
>> Let them wait on the src CPU until they become eligible before migrating
>> them. this can reduce the number of task migrations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hao
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Migrating eligible tasks to dst_cpu does not guarantee that they will
>>>> run earlier than on src_cpu. it depends on too many factors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> prioritize migrating tasks that can run on dst_rq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, migrating ineligible tasks is merely moving them to
>>>>>> another runqueue to wait until they become eligible.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't get why it's a problem. Migrating an eligible task might
>>>>> delay its scheduling because of its deadline vs other tasks already
>>>>> eligible on the dst_rq. Eligible and non eligible tasks are all
>>>>> runnable, it's just how much they have already run. In addition,
>>>>> migrating an eligible task will clear its positive vlag with
>>>>> DELAY_ZERO which is unfair IMO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'd like to ask you a question that confuses me: Why does
>>>> migrating eligible task will clear the positive vlag?
>>>
>>> sorry I mess up everything that only for delayed dequeue task
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In detach_task(), the ENQUEUE_DELAYED and DEQUEUE_SLEEP flags are not
>>>> set, and in dequeue_entity(), eligible tasks will not set sched_delayed,
>>>> so they will be dequeued normally with se->on_rq being 0.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, attach_task() does not set the ENQUEUE_DELAYED and
>>>> DEQUEUE_SLEEP flags, and since se->on_rq is 0, it will not call
>>>> requeue_delayed_entity().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Hao
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists