Message-ID: <bccd38f5-5fd2-4d5d-80e7-c3fa56efa98c@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:39:40 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Dietmar
 Eggemann" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, "Valentin
 Schneider" <vschneid@...hat.com>, "Gautham R. Shenoy"
	<gautham.shenoy@....com>, Swapnil Sapkal <swapnil.sapkal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix inaccurate h_nr_runnable accounting with
 delayed dequeue

Hello Vincent,

On 1/18/2025 2:00 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 at 16:59, K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Vincent,
>>
>> On 1/17/2025 6:55 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Prateek,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 at 11:59, K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> set_delayed() adjusts cfs_rq->h_nr_runnable for the hierarchy when an
>>>> entity is delayed irrespective of whether the entity corresponds to a
>>>> task or a cfs_rq.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following scenario:
>>>>
>>>>           root
>>>>          /    \
>>>>         A      B (*) delayed since B is no longer eligible on root
>>>>         |      |
>>>>       Task0  Task1 <--- dequeue_task_fair() - task blocks
>>>>
>>>> When Task1 blocks (dequeue_entity() for task's se returns true),
>>>> dequeue_entities() will continue adjusting cfs_rq->h_nr_* for the
>>>> hierarchy of Task1. However, when the sched_entity corresponding to
>>>> cfs_rq B is delayed, set_delayed() will adjust the h_nr_runnable for the
>>>> hierarchy too leading to both dequeue_entity() and set_delayed()
>>>> decrementing h_nr_runnable for the dequeue of the same task.
>>>>
>>>> A SCHED_WARN_ON() to inspect h_nr_runnable post its update in
>>>> dequeue_entities() like below:
>>>>
>>>>       cfs_rq->h_nr_runnable -= h_nr_runnable;
>>>>       SCHED_WARN_ON(((int) cfs_rq->h_nr_runnable) < 0);
>>>>
>>>> is consistently tripped when running wakeup intensive workloads like
>>>> hackbench in a cgroup.
>>>>
>>>> This error is self correcting since cfs_rq are per-cpu and cannot
>>>> migrate. The entitiy is either picked for full dequeue or is requeued
>>>> when a task wakes up below it. Both those paths call clear_delayed()
>>>> which again increments h_nr_runnable of the hierarchy without
>>>> considering if the entity corresponds to a task or not.
>>>>
>>>> h_nr_runnable will eventually reflect the correct value however in the
>>>> interim, the incorrect values can still influence PELT calculation which
>>>> uses se->runnable_weight or cfs_rq->h_nr_runnable.
>>>>
>>>> Since only delayed tasks take the early return path in
>>>> dequeue_entities() and enqueue_task_fair(), adjust the
>>>> h_nr_runnable in {set,clear}_delayed() only when a task is delayed as
>>>> this path skips the h_nr_* update loops and returns early.
>>>>
>>>> For entities corresponding to cfs_rq, the h_nr_* update loop in the
>>>> caller will do the right thing.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 76f2f783294d ("sched/eevdf: More PELT vs DELAYED_DEQUEUE")
>>>
>>> You probably mean  c2a295bffeaf ("sched/fair: Add new cfs_rq.h_nr_runnable")
>>
>> You are right! I had done a git blame on set_delayed() ad landed at
>> commit 76f2f783294d but you are right, it should be c2a295bffeaf
>> ("sched/fair: Add new cfs_rq.h_nr_runnable") when the accounting was
>> inverted to account runnable tasks. Thank you for pointing that out.
>>
>>> Before we were tracking the opposite h_nr_delayed. Did you see the
>>> problem only on tip/sched/core or also before the rework which added
>>> h_nr_runnable and removed h_nr_delayed
>>
>> The problem is on tip:sched/core. I did not encounter any anomalies on
>> 76f2f783294d ("sched/eevdf: More PELT vs DELAYED_DEQUEUE")
>>
>> "h_nr_delayed" was only adjusted in dequeue_entities() for "!seep &&
>> !delayed" which would imply migration or a save + restore type operation
>> and the whole "h_nr_delayed" adjusting was contained in
>> {set,clear}_delayed() for delayed dequeue, finish delayed dequeue, and
>> requeue.

So I was looking at it wrong when I was investigating on commit
76f2f783294d ("sched/eevdf: More PELT vs DELAYED_DEQUEUE") h_nr_delayed
can never be larger than h_nr_running (h_nr_queued upstream) since the
number of delayed tasks can never cross number of tasks queued below
the given cfs_rq but with the following:

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 97ee48c8bf5e..8e713f241483 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -7145,6 +7145,7 @@ static int dequeue_entities(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
  		cfs_rq->h_nr_running -= h_nr_running;
  		cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running -= idle_h_nr_running;
  		cfs_rq->h_nr_delayed -= h_nr_delayed;
+		SCHED_WARN_ON(cfs_rq->h_nr_delayed > cfs_rq->h_nr_running);
  
  		if (cfs_rq_is_idle(cfs_rq))
  			idle_h_nr_running = h_nr_running;
@@ -7185,6 +7186,8 @@ static int dequeue_entities(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
  		cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running -= idle_h_nr_running;
  		cfs_rq->h_nr_delayed -= h_nr_delayed;
  
+		SCHED_WARN_ON(cfs_rq->h_nr_delayed > cfs_rq->h_nr_running);
+
  		if (cfs_rq_is_idle(cfs_rq))
  			idle_h_nr_running = h_nr_running;
  
--

I can again consistently hit the warning without the fix on 76f2f783294d
("sched/eevdf: More PELT vs DELAYED_DEQUEUE")

I think that the original "Fixes:" tag is indeed right.

>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to have a closer look
> 
> Your fix looks good to me. I also run some tests after re-adding
> h_nr_delayed and checking that h_nr_queued = h_nr_runnable +
> h_nr_delayed after each update and I didn't get any warning with your
> patch whereas I got one during boot without it (but none after that
> during my tests)

Could it be the case that h_nr_delayed counts a tiny bit higher than
the actual number and h_nr_runnable counts a tiny bit lower by the
same amount and they both correct each other to give the correct
h_nr_queued?

> 
> Thanks for catching this
> 
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>

Thank you for reviewing the patch!

> 
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>
>>>> Tested-by: Swapnil Sapkal <swapnil.sapkal@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> [..snip..]
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Prateek
>>

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek

Powered by blists - more mailing lists