Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:08:57 +0800 | From | Chen Yu <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/eevdf: Return leftmost entity in pick_eevdf() if no eligible entity is found |
| |
On 2024-04-18 at 10:57:22 +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote: > Hi Yu > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 2:35 AM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On 2024-04-09 at 11:21:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:11:39PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote: > > > > On 2024-04-08 at 13:58:33 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 05:00:18PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > According to the log, vruntime is 18435852013561943404, the > > > > > > > cfs_rq->min_vruntime is 763383370431, the load is 629 + 2048 = 2677, > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > > s64 delta = (s64)(18435852013561943404 - 763383370431) = -10892823530978643 > > > > > > > delta * 2677 = 7733399554989275921 > > > > > > > that is to say, the multiply result overflow the s64, which turns the > > > > > > > negative value into a positive value, thus eligible check fails. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > From the data presented it looks like min_vruntime is wrong and needs > > > > > update. If you can readily reproduce this, dump the vruntime of all > > > > > tasks on the runqueue and see if min_vruntime is indeed correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the dump of all the entities on the tree, from left to right, > > > > > > Oh, my bad, I thought it was the pick path. > > > > > > > and also from top down in middle order traverse, when this issue happens: > > > > > > > > [ 514.461242][ T8390] cfs_rq avg_vruntime:386638640128 avg_load:2048 cfs_rq->min_vruntime:763383370431 > > > > [ 514.535935][ T8390] current on_rq se 0xc5851400, deadline:18435852013562231446 > > > > min_vruntime:18437121115753667698 vruntime:18435852013561943404, load:629 > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 514.536772][ T8390] Traverse rb-tree from left to right > > > > [ 514.537138][ T8390] se 0xec1234e0 deadline:763384870431 min_vruntime:763383370431 vruntime:763383370431 non-eligible <-- leftmost se > > > > [ 514.537835][ T8390] se 0xec4fcf20 deadline:763762447228 min_vruntime:763760947228 vruntime:763760947228 non-eligible > > > > > > > > [ 514.538539][ T8390] Traverse rb-tree from topdown > > > > [ 514.538877][ T8390] middle se 0xec1234e0 deadline:763384870431 min_vruntime:763383370431 vruntime:763383370431 non-eligible <-- root se > > > > [ 514.539605][ T8390] middle se 0xec4fcf20 deadline:763762447228 min_vruntime:763760947228 vruntime:763760947228 non-eligible > > > > > > > > The tree looks like: > > > > > > > > se (0xec1234e0) > > > > | > > > > | > > > > ----> se (0xec4fcf20) > > > > > > > > > > > > The root se 0xec1234e0 is also the leftmost se, its min_vruntime and > > > > vruntime are both 763383370431, which is aligned with > > > > cfs_rq->min_vruntime. It seems that the cfs_rq's min_vruntime gets > > > > updated correctly, because it is monotonic increasing. > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > > My guess is that, for some reason, one newly forked se in a newly > > > > created task group, in the rb-tree has not been picked for a long > > > > time(maybe not eligible). Its vruntime stopped at the negative > > > > value(near (unsigned long)(-(1LL << 20)) for a long time, its vruntime > > > > is long behind the cfs_rq->vruntime, thus the overflow happens. > > > > > > I'll have to do the math again, but that's something in the order of not > > > picking a task in about a day, that would be 'bad' :-) > > > > > > Is there any sane way to reproduce this, and how often does it happen? > > > > After adding some ftrace in place_entity() and pick_eevdf(), with the > > help from Yujie in lkp, the issue was reproduced today. The reason why se's vruntime > > is very small seems to be related to task group's reweight_entity(): > > > > vlag = (s64)(avruntime - se->vruntime); > > vlag = div_s64(vlag * old_weight, weight); > > se->vruntime = avruntime - vlag; > > > > The vlag above is not limited by neither 2*se->slice nor TICK_NSEC, > > if the new weight is very small, which is very likely, then the vlag > > could be very large, results in a very small vruntime. > > > > > > The followings are the details why I think above could bring problems: > > > > Here is the debug log printed by place_entity(): > > > > > > [ 397.597268]cfs_rq:0xe75f7100 > > cfs_rq.avg_vruntime:-1111846207333767 > > cfs_rq.min_vruntime:810640668779 > > avg_vruntime():686982466017 > > curr(0xc59f4f20 rb_producer weight:15 vruntime:1447773196654 sum_exec_ns:187707021870 ctx(0 73) > > leftmost(0xeacb6e00 vruntime:332464705486 sum_exec_ns:78776125437 load:677) > > .. > > > > [ 397.877251]cfs_rq:0xe75f7100 > > cfs_rq.avg_vruntime:-759390883821798 > > cfs_rq.min_vruntime:810640668779 > > avg_vruntime(): 689577229374 > > curr(0xc59f4f20 rb_producer weight:15 vruntime:1453640907998 sum_ns:187792974673 ctx(0 73) > > leftmost(0xeacb6e00 vruntime:-59752941080010 sum_ns:78776125437 load:4) > > > > > > The leftmost se is a task group, its vruntime reduces from 332464705486 to > > -59752941080010, because its load reduced from 677 to 4 due to update_cfs_group() > > on the tree entities. > > > > Back to reweight_entity(): > > vlag = avruntime - se->vruntime = 689577229374 - 332464705486 = 357112523888; > > vlag = vlag * old_weight / weight = 357112523888 * 677 / 4 = 60441294668044; > > se->vruntime = avruntime - vlag = -59751717438670; > > > > the new se vruntime -59751717438670 is close to what we printed -59752941080010, > > consider that the avg_vruntime() vary. > > > > Then later this leftmost se has changed its load back and forth, and when the load is 2, > > the vuntime has reached a dangerous threshold to trigger the s64 overflow in > > eligible check: > > > > [ 398.011991]cfs_rq:0xe75f7100 > > cfs_rq.avg_vruntime:-11875977385353427 > > cfs_rq.min_vruntime:810640668779 > > cfs_rq.avg_load:96985 > > leftmost(0xeacb6e00 vruntime:18446623907344963655 load:2) > > > > vruntime_eligible() > > { > > > > key = se.vruntime - cfs_rq.min_vruntime = -120977005256740; > > key * avg_load overflow s64... > > } > > > > As a result the leftmost one can not be picked, and NULL is returned. > > > > One workaround patch I'm thinking of, if this analysis is in the > > right direction, maybe I can have a test later: > > > > thanks, > > Chenyu > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index 6e0968fb9ba8..7ab26cdc3487 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -3965,8 +3965,13 @@ static void reweight_eevdf(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, > > * = V - vl' > > */ > > if (avruntime != se->vruntime) { > > + s64 limit; > > + > > vlag = (s64)(avruntime - se->vruntime); > > vlag = div_s64(vlag * old_weight, weight); > > + /* TBD: using old weight or new weight? */ > > + limit = calc_delta_fair(max_t(u64, 2*se->slice, TICK_NSEC), se); > > + vlag = clamp(lag, -limit, limit); > > se->vruntime = avruntime - vlag; > > } > > > > According to previous discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAB8ipk9N9verfQp6U9s8+TQgNbA5J0DWkOB1dShf20n0xbx94w@mail.gmail.com/ > > Could this patch avoid this problem? >
Ah, right, I did not notice your previous patch has also addressed the overflow in reweight_eevdf(), as I was trying hard to reproduce the issue. Let me check your patch in detail.
thanks, Chenyu
> BR > > > -- > > 2.25.1 > > > > > >
| |