From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
omer.akram@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [v4.8-rc1 Regression] sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:07:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161018090747.GW3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <94cc6deb-f93e-60ec-5834-e84a8b98e73c@arm.com>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> Something looks weird related to the use of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
> online_fair_sched_group() on my i5-3320M CPU (4 logical cpus).
>
> In case I print out cpu id and the cpu masks inside the for_each_possible_cpu(i)
> I get:
>
> [ 5.462368] cpu=0 cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
OK, you have a buggy BIOS :-) It enumerates too many CPU slots. There is
no reason to have 4 empty CPU slots on a machine that cannot do physical
hotplug.
This also explains why it doesn't show on many machines, most machines
will not have this and possible_mask == present_mask == online_mask for
most all cases.
x86 folk, can we detect the lack of physical hotplug capability and FW_WARN
on this and lowering possible_mask to present_mask?
> [ 5.462370] cpu=1 cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
> [ 5.462370] cpu=2 cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
> [ 5.462371] cpu=3 cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
> [ 5.462372] *cpu=4* cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
> [ 5.462373] *cpu=5* cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
> [ 5.462374] *cpu=6* cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
> [ 5.462375] *cpu=7* cpu_possible_mask=0-7 cpu_online_mask=0-3 cpu_present_mask=0-3 cpu_active_mask=0-3
>
> T430:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpu,cpuacct/system.slice# ls -l | grep '^d' | wc -l
> 80
>
> /proc/sched_debug:
>
> cfs_rq[0]:/system.slice
> ...
> .tg_load_avg : 323584
> ...
>
> 80 * 1024 * 4 (not existent cpu4-cpu7) = 327680 (with a little bit of decay,
> this could be this extra load on the systen.slice tg)
>
> Using for_each_online_cpu(i) instead of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
> online_fair_sched_group() works on this machine, i.e. the .tg_load_avg
> of system.slice tg is 0 after startup.
Right, so the reason for using present_mask is that it avoids having to
deal with hotplug, also all the per-cpu memory is allocated and present
for !online CPUs anyway, so might as well set it up properly anyway.
(You might want to start booting your laptop with "possible_cpus=4" to
save some memory FWIW.)
But yes, we have a bug here too... /me ponders
So aside from funny BIOSes, this should also show up when creating
cgroups when you have offlined a few CPUs, which is far more common I'd
think.
On IRC you mentioned that adding list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() to
online_fair_sched_group() cures this, this would actually match with
unregister_fair_sched_group() doing list_del_leaf_cfs_rq() and avoid
a few instructions on the enqueue path, so that's all good.
I'm just not immediately seeing how that cures things. The only relevant
user of the leaf_cfs_rq list seems to be update_blocked_averages() which
is called from the balance code (idle_balance() and
rebalance_domains()). But neither should call that for offline (or
!present) CPUs.
Humm..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-18 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-07 19:38 Joseph Salisbury
2016-10-07 19:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-10-07 20:22 ` Joseph Salisbury
2016-10-07 20:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-10-08 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-08 8:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-10-08 11:37 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-08 11:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-10-12 12:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-12 15:35 ` Joseph Salisbury
2016-10-12 16:21 ` Joseph Salisbury
2016-10-13 10:58 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-13 15:52 ` Joseph Salisbury
2016-10-13 16:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-13 18:49 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-10-13 21:34 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-14 8:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-14 13:10 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-10-14 15:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-14 16:04 ` Joseph Salisbury
2016-10-17 9:09 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-17 11:49 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-10-17 13:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-17 13:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-17 22:52 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-10-18 8:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-18 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-10-18 9:45 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-18 10:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-18 11:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-18 21:58 ` Joonwoo Park
2016-10-19 6:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-19 9:46 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-10-19 11:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-19 15:33 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-10-19 17:33 ` Joonwoo Park
2016-10-19 17:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-19 11:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-19 11:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-19 13:30 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-10-19 17:41 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-20 7:56 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-10-19 14:49 ` Joseph Salisbury
2016-10-19 14:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-10-18 11:15 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-10-18 12:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161018090747.GW3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=joseph.salisbury@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=omer.akram@canonical.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome