Message-ID: <20251028063659.GC33@bytedance>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 14:36:59 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
To: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com>,
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Xi Wang <xii@...gle.com>, 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>,
	Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>,
	Songtang Liu <liusongtang@...edance.com>,
	Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
	Matteo Martelli <matteo.martelli@...ethink.co.uk>,
	Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Prevent cfs_rq from being unthrottled
 with zero runtime_remaining

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 03:33:19PM -0700, Benjamin Segall wrote:
> Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com> writes:
> 
> > When a cfs_rq is to be throttled, its limbo list should be empty and
> > that's why there is a warn in tg_throttle_down() for non empty
> > cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list.
> >
> > When running a test with the following hierarchy:
> >
> >           root
> >         /      \
> >         A*     ...
> >      /  |  \   ...
> >         B
> >        /  \
> >       C*
> >
> > where both A and C have quota settings, that warn on non empty limbo list
> > is triggered for a cfs_rq of C, let's call it cfs_rq_c(and ignore the cpu
> > part of the cfs_rq for the sake of simpler representation).
> >
> > Debug showed it happened like this:
> > Task group C is created and quota is set, so in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(),
> > cfs_rq_c is initialized with runtime_enabled set, runtime_remaining
> > equals to 0 and *unthrottled*. Before any tasks are enqueued to cfs_rq_c,
> > *multiple* throttled tasks can migrate to cfs_rq_c (e.g., due to task
> > group changes). When enqueue_task_fair(cfs_rq_c, throttled_task) is
> > called and cfs_rq_c is in a throttled hierarchy (e.g., A is throttled),
> > these throttled tasks are directly placed into cfs_rq_c's limbo list by
> > enqueue_throttled_task().
> >
> > Later, when A is unthrottled, tg_unthrottle_up(cfs_rq_c) enqueues these
> > tasks. The first enqueue triggers check_enqueue_throttle(), and with zero
> > runtime_remaining, cfs_rq_c can be throttled in throttle_cfs_rq() if it
> > can't get more runtime and enters tg_throttle_down(), where the warning
> > is hit due to remaining tasks in the limbo list.
> >
> > I think it's a chaos to trigger throttle on unthrottle path, the status
> > of a being unthrottled cfs_rq can be in a mixed state at the end, so fix
> > this by calling throttle_cfs_rq() in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth() immediately
> > after enabling bandwidth and setting runtime_remaining = 0. This ensures
> > cfs_rq_c is throttled upfront and cannot enter tg_unthrottle_up() with
> > zero runtime_remaining.
> >
> > Also, update outdated comments in tg_throttle_down() since
> > unthrottle_cfs_rq() is no longer called with zero runtime_remaining.
> >
> > While at it, remove a redundant assignment to se in tg_throttle_down().
> >
> > Fixes: e1fad12dcb66("sched/fair: Switch to task based throttle model")
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
> > Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
> > ---
> > v2: add update_rq_clock() before throttle_cfs_rq() as reported by Hao
> >     Jia, or a warn on outdated rq clock is trigged in tg_throttle_down().
> >     This can happen when user specified a tiny quota.
> >
> > Note that Hao Jia also proposed another solution by using a special flag
> > when doing enqueue_task_fair() in unthrottle path to avoid doing
> > check_enqueue_throttle() [0]. I think that approach is fine too and it
> > also has the benefit of not needing to worry about any other potential
> > cases where a cfs_rq is unthrottled with <=0 runtime_remaining. Thoughts
> > on which approach to go is welcome, thanks.
> > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c4a1bcea-fb00-6f3f-6bf6-d876393190e4@gmail.com/
> >
> >  kernel/sched/core.c  | 11 ++++++++++-
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c  | 16 +++++++---------
> >  kernel/sched/sched.h |  1 +
> >  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index f1ebf67b48e21..58185ec5b8efd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -9608,7 +9608,16 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
> >  		cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = runtime_enabled;
> >  		cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
> >  
> > -		if (cfs_rq->throttled)
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Throttle cfs_rq now or it can be unthrottled with zero
> > +		 * runtime_remaining and gets throttled on its unthrottle path.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && !cfs_rq->throttled) {
> > +			update_rq_clock(rq);
> > +			throttle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (!cfs_rq->runtime_enabled && cfs_rq->throttled)
> >  			unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> >  	}
> >
> 
> So if this is the only case it can come up, and it only occurs becasue
> we set runtime_remaining = 0 and check in unthrottle with <= 0, then I
> think we should just set runtime_remaining = 1 here. 
>

Thanks Ben, I like your suggestion and tested that it works for the case
I described here. I think it should also work for the case Hao Jia
described in his patch's changelog. 

> That seems simpler than either throttling immediately (despite likely
> having plenty of cfs_b->runtime) or adding an enqueue flag. Adding NR_CPUs
> nanoseconds worth of quota on configure seems fine.

Agree.

> 
> unthrottle_cfs_rq/tg_unthrottle_up itself doesn't drop rq lock, so we
> shouldn't be able to see cfs_rq->runtime_remaining being consumed during
> it, even if it's running on a remote cpu so that threads in the cfs_rq
> can be running. They should wind up stuck waiting for rq lock in order
> to update runtime_remaining.
> 
> Is there anything you see missing from that approach? I think it doing =

Not any that I'm aware of.

> 0 in particular here is just an artifact, and while the extra check for
> runtime_remaining in unthrottle isn't unreasonable, the conflict with
> tg_set_cfs_bandwidth isn't a fundamental issue.

Got it, thanks for the suggestion, will change the patch accordingly for
v3. I think it will become a simple one line change:

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 7f1e5cb94c536..23f92222aedf3 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -9606,7 +9606,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
 
 		guard(rq_lock_irq)(rq);
 		cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = runtime_enabled;
-		cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
+		cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 1;
 
 		if (cfs_rq->throttled)
 			unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);

Powered by blists - more mailing lists