mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
	Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] sched/fair: Handle throttle path for task based throttle
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:30:52 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <737edc45-5f56-4df5-b328-168980d744db@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250314084854.GA1633113@bytedance>

Hello Aaron,

On 3/14/2025 2:18 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>>    static int tg_throttle_down(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
>>>    {
>>>    	struct rq *rq = data;
>>>    	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq)];
>>> +	struct task_struct *p;
>>> +	struct rb_node *node;
>>> +
>>> +	cfs_rq->throttle_count++;
>>> +	if (cfs_rq->throttle_count > 1)
>>> +		return 0;
>>>
>>>    	/* group is entering throttled state, stop time */
>>> -	if (!cfs_rq->throttle_count) {
>>> -		cfs_rq->throttled_clock_pelt = rq_clock_pelt(rq);
>>> -		list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
>>> +	cfs_rq->throttled_clock_pelt = rq_clock_pelt(rq);
>>
>> Once cencern here is that the PELT is seemingly frozen despite the
>> hierarchy being runnable. I've still not tracked down whether it'll
>> cause any problems once unthrottled and all throttled time is negated
>> from the pelt clock but is there any concerns here?
>   
> I chose to do it this way because:
> 1 I expect most of the time, if a task has to continue to run after its
> cfs_rq gets throttled, the time is relatively small so should not cause
> much impact. But I agree there can be times a task runs relatively long;
> 2 I think the original intent to freeze cfs_rq's pelt clock on throttle
> is so that on unthrottle, it can retore its loada(without its load being
> decayed etc.). If I chose to not freeze its pelt clock on throttle
> because some task is still running in kernel mode, since some of this
> cfs_rq's tasks are throttled, its load can become smaller and this can
> impact its load on unthrottle.
> 
> I think both approach is not perfect, so I chose the simple one for now
> :) Not sure if my thinking is correct though.
> 
>> Maybe this can be done at dequeue when cfs_rq->nr_queued on a
>> throttled_hierarchy() reached 0.
> 
> Yes, this looks more consistent, maybe I should change to this approach.

I agree the time might be small in most cases but some syscalls with
enough contention in the system can take a while to exit to user mode.
Even I'm not sure what the correct approach is here - should a
subtree's PELT be frozen when the last task dequeues or should we
freeze it for the whole hierarchy once the throttled cfs_rq dequeues?

I'll wait for other folks to chime in since they know these bits
better than me.

> 
>>> +	list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
>>>
>>> -		SCHED_WARN_ON(cfs_rq->throttled_clock_self);
>>> -		if (cfs_rq->nr_queued)
>>> -			cfs_rq->throttled_clock_self = rq_clock(rq);
>>> +	SCHED_WARN_ON(cfs_rq->throttled_clock_self);
>>> +	if (cfs_rq->nr_queued)
>>> +		cfs_rq->throttled_clock_self = rq_clock(rq);
>>> +
>>> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list));
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * rq_lock is held, current is (obviously) executing this in kernelspace.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * All other tasks enqueued on this rq have their saved PC at the
>>> +	 * context switch, so they will go through the kernel before returning
>>> +	 * to userspace. Thus, there are no tasks-in-userspace to handle, just
>>> +	 * install the task_work on all of them.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	node = rb_first(&cfs_rq->tasks_timeline.rb_root);
>>> +	while (node) {
>>> +		struct sched_entity *se = __node_2_se(node);
>>> +
>>> +		if (!entity_is_task(se))
>>> +			goto next;
>>> +
>>> +		p = task_of(se);
>>> +		task_throttle_setup_work(p);
>>> +next:
>>> +		node = rb_next(node);
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	/* curr is not in the timeline tree */
>>> +	if (cfs_rq->curr && entity_is_task(cfs_rq->curr)) {
>>
>> I believe we can reach here from pick_next_task_fair() ->
>> check_cfs_rq_runtime() -> throttle_cfs_rq() in which case cfs_rq->curr
>> will still be set despite the task being blocked since put_prev_entity()
>> has not been called yet.
>>
>> I believe there should be a check for task_on_rq_queued() here for the
>> current task.
> 
> Ah right, I'll see how to fix this.

It may not be necessary with the recent suggestion from Chengming where
you can just add the task work if the task was picked on a throttled
hierarchy.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek

> 
> Thanks,
> Aaron
> 
>>> +		p = task_of(cfs_rq->curr);
>>> +		task_throttle_setup_work(p);
>>>    	}
>>> -	cfs_rq->throttle_count++;
>>>
>>>    	return 0;
>>>    }
>>>
>>
>> [..snip..]
>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Prateek
>>



  reply	other threads:[~2025-03-14  9:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-17 10:56 [RFC PATCH 0/7] Defer throttle when task exits to user Aaron Lu
2025-03-13  7:21 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] sched/fair: Add related data structure for task based throttle Aaron Lu
2025-03-17 10:28   ` Valentin Schneider
2025-03-17 11:02     ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-13  7:21 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] sched/fair: Handle throttle path " Aaron Lu
2025-03-13 18:14   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14  8:48     ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  9:00       ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2025-03-14  3:28   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14  8:57     ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  9:12       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14 15:10         ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  8:39   ` Chengming Zhou
2025-03-14  8:49     ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14  9:42     ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-14 10:26       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14 11:47         ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-14 15:58           ` Chengming Zhou
2025-03-14 18:04           ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14 11:07       ` Chengming Zhou
2025-03-31  6:42         ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-31  9:14           ` Chengming Zhou
2025-03-16  3:25   ` Josh Don
2025-03-17  2:54     ` Chengming Zhou
2025-03-20  6:59       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-20  8:39         ` Chengming Zhou
2025-03-20 18:40           ` Xi Wang
2025-03-24  8:58             ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-25 10:02               ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-28  0:11                 ` Xi Wang
2025-03-28  3:11                   ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-28 22:47         ` Benjamin Segall
2025-03-19 13:43     ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-20  1:06       ` Josh Don
2025-03-20  6:53     ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-13  7:21 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] sched/fair: Handle unthrottle " Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  3:53   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14  4:06     ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14 10:43     ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-14 17:52       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-17  5:48         ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-02  9:25         ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-02 17:24           ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-13  7:21 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] sched/fair: Take care of migrated task " Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  4:03   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14  9:49     ` [External] " Aaron Lu
2025-03-13  7:21 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] sched/fair: Take care of group/affinity/sched_class change for throttled task Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  4:51   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14 11:40     ` [External] " Aaron Lu
2025-03-13  7:22 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] sched/fair: fix tasks_rcu with task based throttle Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  4:14   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14 11:37     ` [External] " Aaron Lu
2025-03-31  6:19     ` Aaron Lu
2025-04-01  3:17       ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-01  8:48         ` Aaron Lu
2025-03-13  7:22 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] sched/fair: Make sure cfs_rq has enough runtime_remaining on unthrottle path Aaron Lu
2025-03-14  4:18   ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-14 11:39     ` [External] " Aaron Lu

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=737edc45-5f56-4df5-b328-168980d744db@amd.com \
    --to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joshdon@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=zhouchuyi@bytedance.com \
    --cc=ziqianlu@bytedance.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®