lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with static key
Date

Hi Qais,
here are some more 2c from me...

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 18:26:33 +0200, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote...

[...]

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 235b2cae00a0..8d80d6091d86 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -794,6 +794,26 @@ unsigned int sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_max = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
> /* All clamps are required to be less or equal than these values */
> static struct uclamp_se uclamp_default[UCLAMP_CNT];
>
> +/*
> + * This static key is used to reduce the uclamp overhead in the fast path. It
> + * primarily disables the call to uclamp_rq_{inc, dec}() in
> + * enqueue/dequeue_task().
> + *
> + * This allows users to continue to enable uclamp in their kernel config with
> + * minimum uclamp overhead in the fast path.
> + *
> + * As soon as userspace modifies any of the uclamp knobs, the static key is
> + * enabled, since we have an actual users that make use of uclamp
> + * functionality.
> + *
> + * The knobs that would enable this static key are:
> + *
> + * * A task modifying its uclamp value with sched_setattr().
> + * * An admin modifying the sysctl_sched_uclamp_{min, max} via procfs.
> + * * An admin modifying the cgroup cpu.uclamp.{min, max}

I guess this list can be obtained with a grep or git changelog, moreover
this text will require maintenance.

What about replacing this full comment with something shorted like:

---8<---
Static key to reduce uclamp overhead in the fast path by disabling
calls to uclamp_rq_{inc, dec}().
---8<---

> + */
> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(sched_uclamp_used);
> +
> /* Integer rounded range for each bucket */
> #define UCLAMP_BUCKET_DELTA DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, UCLAMP_BUCKETS)
>
> @@ -994,9 +1014,30 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec_id(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
> lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
>
> bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id];
> - SCHED_WARN_ON(!bucket->tasks);
> +
> + /*
> + * bucket->tasks could be zero if sched_uclamp_used was enabled while
> + * the current task was running, hence we could end up with unbalanced
> + * call to uclamp_rq_dec_id().
> + *
> + * Need to be careful of the following enqeueue/dequeue order
> + * problem too
> + *
> + * enqueue(taskA)
> + * // sched_uclamp_used gets enabled
> + * enqueue(taskB)
> + * dequeue(taskA)
> + * // bucket->tasks is now 0
> + * dequeue(taskB)
> + *
> + * where we could end up with uc_se->active of the task set to true and
> + * the wrong bucket[uc_se->bucket_id].value.
> + *
> + * Hence always make sure we reset things properly.
> + */
> if (likely(bucket->tasks))
> bucket->tasks--;
> +
> uc_se->active = false;

Better than v4, what about just using this active flag?

---8<---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 8f360326861e..465a7645713b 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -990,6 +990,13 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec_id(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,

lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);

+ /*
+ * If a task was already enqueue at uclamp enable time
+ * nothing has been accounted for it.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(!uc_se->active))
+ return;
+
bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id];
SCHED_WARN_ON(!bucket->tasks);
if (likely(bucket->tasks))
---8<---
This will allow also to keep in all the ref count checks we have,
e.g. the SChed_WARN_ON().


> /*
> @@ -1032,6 +1073,13 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
>
> + /*
> + * Avoid any overhead until uclamp is actually used by the userspace.
> + * Including the branch if we use static_branch_likely()

I still find this last sentence hard to parse, but perhaps it's just me
still missing a breakfast :)

> + */
> + if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_uclamp_used))
> + return;

I'm also still wondering if the optimization is still working when we
have that ! in front.

Had a check at:

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/jump_label.h#L399

and AFAIU, it all boils down to cook a __branch_check()'s compiler hint,
and ISTR that those are "anti-patterns"?

That said we do have some usages for this pattern too:

$ git grep '!static_branch_unlikely' | wc -l 36
$ git grep 'static_branch_unlikely' | wc -l 220
?

> +
> if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
> return;
>

[...]

> +/**
> + * uclamp_rq_util_with - clamp @util with @rq and @p effective uclamp values.
> + * @rq: The rq to clamp against. Must not be NULL.
> + * @util: The util value to clamp.
> + * @p: The task to clamp against. Can be NULL if you want to clamp
> + * against @rq only.
> + *
> + * Clamps the passed @util to the max(@rq, @p) effective uclamp values.
> + *
> + * If sched_uclamp_used static key is disabled, then just return the util
> + * without any clamping since uclamp aggregation at the rq level in the fast
> + * path is disabled, rendering this operation a NOP.
> + *
> + * Use uclamp_eff_value() if you don't care about uclamp values at rq level. It
> + * will return the correct effective uclamp value of the task even if the
> + * static key is disabled.

Well, if you don't care about rq, you don't call a uclamp_rq_* method.

I would say that the above paragraph is redundant, moreover it adds some
cross-reference to a different method (name) which required maintenance.

What about removing it?

> + */
> static __always_inline
> unsigned long uclamp_rq_util_with(struct rq *rq, unsigned long util,
> struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - unsigned long min_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> - unsigned long max_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value);
> + unsigned long min_util;
> + unsigned long max_util;
> +
> + if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_uclamp_used))
> + return util;
> +
> + min_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> + max_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value);

I think moving the initialization is not required, the compiler should
be smart enough to place theme where's better.

> if (p) {
> min_util = max(min_util, uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN));
> @@ -2371,6 +2396,11 @@ unsigned long uclamp_rq_util_with(struct rq *rq, unsigned long util,
>
> return clamp(util, min_util, max_util);
> }
> +
> +static inline bool uclamp_is_enabled(void)
> +{
> + return static_branch_likely(&sched_uclamp_used);
> +}

Looks like here we mix up terms, which can be confusing.
AFAIKS, we use:
- *_enabled for the sched class flags (compile time)
- *_used for the user-space opting in (run time)

Thus, perhaps we can just use the same pattern used by the
sched_numa_balancing static key:

$ git grep sched_numa_balancing
kernel/sched/core.c:DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(sched_numa_balancing);
kernel/sched/core.c: static_branch_enable(&sched_numa_balancing);
kernel/sched/core.c: static_branch_disable(&sched_numa_balancing);
kernel/sched/core.c: int state = static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing);
kernel/sched/fair.c: if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing))
kernel/sched/fair.c: if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing))
kernel/sched/fair.c: if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing))
kernel/sched/fair.c: if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing))
kernel/sched/sched.h:extern struct static_key_false sched_numa_balancing;
IOW: unconditionally define sched_uclamp_used as non static in core.c,
and use it directly on schedutil too.

> #else /* CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK */
> static inline
> unsigned long uclamp_rq_util_with(struct rq *rq, unsigned long util,
> @@ -2378,6 +2408,11 @@ unsigned long uclamp_rq_util_with(struct rq *rq, unsigned long util,
> {
> return util;
> }
> +
> +static inline bool uclamp_is_enabled(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> #endif /* CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK */
>
> #ifdef arch_scale_freq_capacity

Best,
Patrick

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 10:13    [W:0.073 / U:32.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site