linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] sched/fair: Handle unthrottle path for task based throttle

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250317054847.GA3107573@bytedance>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:48:47 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>,
	Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] sched/fair: Handle unthrottle path for task
 based throttle

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:22:20PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
> 
> On 3/14/2025 4:13 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 09:23:47AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> > > Hello Aaron,
> > > 
> > > On 3/13/2025 12:51 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > 
> > > [..snip..]
> > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >    kernel/sched/fair.c | 132 +++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> > > >    1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > index ab403ff7d53c8..4a95fe3785e43 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > @@ -5366,18 +5366,17 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> > > > sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > > > 
> > > >    	if (cfs_rq->nr_queued == 1) {
> > > >    		check_enqueue_throttle(cfs_rq);
> > > > -		if (!throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq)) {
> > > > -			list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > > > -		} else {
> > > > +		list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > > >    #ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> > > > +		if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq)) {
> > > >    			struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
> > > > 
> > > >    			if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq) && !cfs_rq->throttled_clock)
> > > >    				cfs_rq->throttled_clock = rq_clock(rq);
> > > >    			if (!cfs_rq->throttled_clock_self)
> > > >    				cfs_rq->throttled_clock_self = rq_clock(rq);
> > > 
> > > These bits probabaly need revisiting. From what I understand, these
> > > stats were maintained to know when a task was woken up on a
> > > throttled hierarchy which was not connected to the parent essentially
> > > tracking the amount of time runnable tasks were waiting on the
> > > cfs_rq before an unthrottle event allowed them to be picked.
> > 
> > Do you mean these throttled_clock stats?
> > 
> > I think they are here because we do not record the throttled_clock for
> > empty cfs_rqs and once the cfs_rq has task enqueued, it needs to record
> > its throttled_clock. This is done in commit 79462e8c879a("sched: don't
> > account throttle time for empty groups") by Josh. I don't think per-task
> > throttle change this.
> > 
> > With this said, I think there is a gap in per-task throttle, i.e. when
> > all tasks are dequeued from this throttled cfs_rq, we should record its
> > throttled_time and clear its throttled_clock.
> 
> Yes but then what it'll track is the amount of time task were running
> when the cfs_rq was on a throttled hierarchy. Is that what we want to
> track or something else.

Right, my last comment was not correct.

Basically, my current approach tried to mimic the existing accounting,
i.e. when there is task enqueued in a throttled cfs_rq, start recording
this cfs_rq's throttled_clock. It kind of over-accounts the throttled
time for cfs_rq with this per-task throttle model because some task can
still be running in kernel mode while cfs_rq is throttled.

> The commit log for 677ea015f231 ("sched: add throttled time stat for
> throttled children") says the following for "throttled_clock_self_time":
> 
>     We currently export the total throttled time for cgroups that are given
>     a bandwidth limit. This patch extends this accounting to also account
>     the total time that each children cgroup has been throttled.
> 
>     This is useful to understand the degree to which children have been
>     affected by the throttling control. Children which are not runnable
>     during the entire throttled period, for example, will not show any
>     self-throttling time during this period.
> 
> but with per-task model, it is probably the amount of time that
> "throttled_limbo_list" has a task on it since they are runnable
> but are in-fact waiting for an unthrottle.
>
> If a task enqueues itself on a throttled hierarchy and then blocks
> again before exiting to the userspace, it should not count in
> "throttled_clock_self_time" since the task was runnable the whole
> time despite the hierarchy being frozen.

I think there is a mismatch between per-task throttle and per-cfs_rq
stats, it's hard to make the accounting perfect. Assume a throttled
cfs_rq has 4 tasks, with 2 tasks blocked on limbo_list and 2 tasks still
running in kernel mode. Should we treat this time as throttled or not
for this cfs_rq?

This is similar to the pelt clock freeze problem. For the above example,
should we freeze the cfs_rq's pelt clock or let it continue when this
cfs_rq is throttled with some task blocked on limbo_list and some task
still running in kernel mode?

My understanding is, neither approach is perfect, so I just chose the
simpler one for now. Please correct me if my understaning is wrong.

Thanks,
Aaron