lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH updated v2] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:42:30AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:02:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4476,6 +4473,16 @@ next_class:;
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!cookie_match(next, rq_i->core_pick));
> > }
> >
> > + /* XXX SMT2 only */
> > + if (new_active == 1 && old_active > 1) {
>
> There is a case when incompatible task appears but we failed to 'drop
> into single-rq mode' per the above condition check. The TLDR is: when
> there is a task that sits on the sibling rq with the same cookie as
> 'max', new_active will be 2 instead of 1 and that would cause us missing
> the chance to do a sync of core min_vruntime.

FWIW: when I disable the feature of running cookie_pick task on sibling
and thus enforce a strict single-rq mode, Peter's patch works well for
the scenario described below.

> This is how it happens:
> 1) 2 tasks of the same cgroup with different weight running on 2 siblings,
> say cg0_A with weight 1024 bound at cpu0 and cg0_B with weight 2 bound
> at cpu1(assume cpu0 and cpu1 are siblings);
> 2) Since new_active == 2, we didn't trigger min_vruntime sync. For
> simplicity, let's assume both siblings' root cfs_rq's min_vruntime and
> core_vruntime are all at 0 now;
> 3) let the two tasks run a while;
> 4) a new task cg1_C of another cgroup gets queued on cpu1. Since cpu1's
> existing task has a very small weight, its cfs_rq's min_vruntime can
> be much larger than cpu0's cfs_rq min_vruntime. So cg1_C's vruntime is
> much larger than cg0_A's and the 'max' of the core wide task
> selection goes to cg0_A;
> 5) Now I suppose we should drop into single-rq mode and by doing a sync
> of core min_vruntime, cg1_C's turn shall come. But the problem is, our
> current selection logic prefer not to waste CPU time so after decides
> cg0_A as the 'max', the sibling will also do a cookie_pick() and
> get cg0_B to run. This is where problem asises: new_active is 2
> instead of the expected 1.
> 6) Due to we didn't do the sync of core min_vruntime, the newly queued
> cg1_C shall wait a long time before cg0_A's vruntime catches up.

P.S. this is what I did to enforce a strict single-rq mode:

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 1fa5b48b742a..0f5580bc7e96 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4411,7 +4411,7 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *ma
(!max || prio_less(max, class_pick)))
return class_pick;

- return cookie_pick;
+ return NULL;
}

static struct task_struct *
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-22 11:41    [W:0.111 / U:13.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site