lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/rt: don't try to balance rt_runtime when it is futile
Hi Paul,
On 5/14/14, 11:08 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> As of the old commit ac086bc22997a2be24fc40fc8d46522fe7e03d11
> ("sched: rt-group: smp balancing") the concept of borrowing per
> cpu rt_runtime from one core to another was introduced.
>
> However, this prevents the RT throttling message from ever being
> emitted when someone does a common (but mistaken) attempt at
> using too much CPU in RT context. Consider the following test:
>
> echo "main() {for(;;);}" > full_load.c
> gcc full_load.c -o full_load
> taskset -c 1 ./full_load &
> chrt -r -p 80 `pidof full_load`

I try this on 3.18-rc6 w/ CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT=60 and
SCHED_FEAT(RT_RUNTIME_SHARE, true), however I don't see rcu stall
warning, where I miss?

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

> When run on x86_64 defconfig, what happens is as follows:
>
> -task runs on core1 for 95% of an rt_period as documented in
> the file Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt
>
> -at 95%, the code in balance_runtime sees this threshold and
> calls do_balance_runtime()
>
> -do_balance_runtime sees that core 1 is in need, and does this:
> ---------------
> if (rt_rq->rt_runtime + diff > rt_period)
> diff = rt_period - rt_rq->rt_runtime;
> iter->rt_runtime -= diff;
> rt_rq->rt_runtime += diff;
> ---------------
> which extends core1's rt_runtime by 5%, making it 100% of rt_period
> by stealing 5% from core0 (or possibly some other core).
>
> However, the next time core1's rt_rq enters sched_rt_runtime_exceeded(),
> we hit this near the top of that function:
> ---------------
> if (runtime >= sched_rt_period(rt_rq))
> return 0;
> ---------------
> and hence we'll _never_ look at/set any of the throttling checks and
> messages in sched_rt_runtime_exceeded(). Instead, we will happily
> plod along for CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT seconds, at which point
> the RCU subsystem will get angry and trigger an NMI in response to
> what it rightly sees as a WTF situation.
>
> Granted, there are lots of ways you can do bad things to yourself with
> RT, but in the current zeitgeist of multicore systems with people
> dedicating individual cores to individual tasks, I'd say the above is
> common enough that we should react to it sensibly, and an RCU stall
> really doesn't translate well to an end user vs a simple message that
> says "throttling activated".
>
> One way to get the throttle message instead of the ambiguous and lengthy
> NMI triggered all core backtrace of the RCU stall is to change the
> SCHED_FEAT(RT_RUNTIME_SHARE, true) to false. One could make a good
> case for this being the default for the out-of-tree preempt-rt series,
> since folks using that are more apt to be manually tuning the system
> and won't want an invisible hand coming in and making changes.
>
> However, in mainline, where it is more likely that there will be
> n+x (x>0) RT tasks on an n core system, we can leave the sharing on,
> and still avoid the RCU stalls by noting that there is no point in
> trying to balance when there are no tasks to migrate, or only a
> single RT task is present. Inflating the rt_runtime does nothing
> in this case other than defeat sched_rt_runtime_exceeded().
>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
> ---
>
> [I'd mentioned a similar use case here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/6/338
> and tglx asked why they wouldn't see the throttle message; it is only
> now that I had a chance to dig in and figure out why. Oh, and the patch
> is against linux-next, in case that matters...]
>
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index ea4d500..698aac9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -774,6 +774,15 @@ static int balance_runtime(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> if (!sched_feat(RT_RUNTIME_SHARE))
> return more;
>
> + /*
> + * Stealing from another core won't help us at all if
> + * we have nothing to migrate over there, or only one
> + * task that is running up all the rt_time. In fact it
> + * will just inhibit the throttling message in that case.
> + */
> + if (!rt_rq->rt_nr_migratory || rt_rq->rt_nr_total == 1)
> + return more;
> +
> if (rt_rq->rt_time > rt_rq->rt_runtime) {
> raw_spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock);
> more = do_balance_runtime(rt_rq);



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-27 13:01    [W:0.189 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site