Messages in this thread | | | From | Benjamin Segall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:07:12 -0700 |
| |
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 09:10:24AM -0400 Phil Auld wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:54:58PM -0700 Benjamin Segall wrote: >> > Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> writes: >> > >> > > CFS bandwidth limits and NOHZ full don't play well together. Tasks >> > > can easily run well past their quotas before a remote tick does >> > > accounting. This leads to long, multi-period stalls before such >> > > tasks can run again. Currently, when presented with these conflicting >> > > requirements the scheduler is favoring nohz_full and letting the tick >> > > be stopped. However, nohz tick stopping is already best-effort, there >> > > are a number of conditions that can prevent it, whereas cfs runtime >> > > bandwidth is expected to be enforced. >> > > >> > > Make the scheduler favor bandwidth over stopping the tick by setting >> > > TICK_DEP_BIT_SCHED when the only running task is a cfs task with >> > > runtime limit enabled. We use cfs_b->hierarchical_quota to >> > > determine if the task requires the tick. >> > > >> > > Add check in pick_next_task_fair() as well since that is where >> > > we have a handle on the task that is actually going to be running. >> > > >> > > Add check in sched_can_stop_tick() to cover some edge cases such >> > > as nr_running going from 2->1 and the 1 remains the running task. >> > > >> > > Add sched_feat HZ_BW (off by default) to control the tick_stop >> > > behavior. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> >> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> >> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >> > > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> >> > > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> >> > > Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> >> > > Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com> >> > > Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com> >> > > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> >> > > --- >> > > kernel/sched/core.c | 12 ++++++++++ >> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > kernel/sched/features.h | 2 ++ >> > > kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 + >> > > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c >> > > index 1b214e10c25d..4b8534abdf4f 100644 >> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c >> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c >> > > @@ -1229,6 +1229,18 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq) >> > > if (rq->nr_running > 1) >> > > return false; >> > > >> > > + /* >> > > + * If there is one task and it has CFS runtime bandwidth constraints >> > > + * and it's on the cpu now we don't want to stop the tick. >> > > + * This check prevents clearing the bit if a newly enqueued task here is >> > > + * dequeued by migrating while the constrained task continues to run. >> > > + * E.g. going from 2->1 without going through pick_next_task(). >> > > + */ >> > > + if (sched_feat(HZ_BW) && rq->nr_running == 1 && task_on_rq_queued(rq->curr)) { >> > > + if (cfs_task_bw_constrained(rq->curr)) >> > > + return false; >> > > + } >> > > + >> > >> > I think we still need the fair_sched_class check with the bit being on >> > cfs_rq/tg rather than task. >> > >> >> Is there a way a non-fair_sched_class task will be in a cfs_rq with >> cfs_rq->runtime_enabled and/or cfs_b->hierarchical_quota set to non >> RUNTIME_INF? I suppose if they are stale and it's had its class changed? >> >> That makes the condition pretty ugly but I can add that back if needed. >> > > Sigh, yeah. I took that out when I had the bit in the task. I'll put it > back in... >
Yeah, cfs_rq (and rt_rq) are set unconditionally, and a cgroup can have a mix of fair and RT tasks (whether or not that's a good idea from a sysadmin perspective).
| |