[RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
always be skiped when there are tasks in rq. As a result, the task's
vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
is almost not updated.
When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
run for a long time.
In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.

Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@unisoc.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ff4dbbae3b10..a9ff1921fc07 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -670,7 +670,6 @@ static struct sched_entity *__pick_next_entity(struct sched_entity *se)
 	return __node_2_se(next);
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
 struct sched_entity *__pick_last_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 {
 	struct rb_node *last = rb_last(&cfs_rq->tasks_timeline.rb_root);
@@ -681,6 +680,7 @@ struct sched_entity *__pick_last_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
 	return __node_2_se(last);
 }
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
 /**************************************************************
  * Scheduling class statistics methods:
  */
@@ -7751,8 +7751,18 @@ static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
 
 static void set_skip_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
 {
-	for_each_sched_entity(se)
-		cfs_rq_of(se)->skip = se;
+	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
+		struct sched_entity *last;
+		struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
+
+		last = __pick_last_entity(cfs_rq);
+		if (last) {
+			se->vruntime = last->vruntime;
+			update_min_vruntime(cfs_rq);
+		}
+
+		cfs_rq->skip = se;
+	}
 }
 
 /*
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

Hi all

Looking forward to your comments.

Thanks！

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 4:21 PM Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@unisoc.com> wrote:
>
> When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> always be skiped when there are tasks in rq. As a result, the task's
> vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> is almost not updated.
> When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> run for a long time.
> In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
> This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@unisoc.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ff4dbbae3b10..a9ff1921fc07 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -670,7 +670,6 @@ static struct sched_entity *__pick_next_entity(struct sched_entity *se)
>         return __node_2_se(next);
>  }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
>  struct sched_entity *__pick_last_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>  {
>         struct rb_node *last = rb_last(&cfs_rq->tasks_timeline.rb_root);
> @@ -681,6 +680,7 @@ struct sched_entity *__pick_last_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>         return __node_2_se(last);
>  }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
>  /**************************************************************
>   * Scheduling class statistics methods:
>   */
> @@ -7751,8 +7751,18 @@ static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
>
>  static void set_skip_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
>  {
> -       for_each_sched_entity(se)
> -               cfs_rq_of(se)->skip = se;
> +       for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> +               struct sched_entity *last;
> +               struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> +
> +               last = __pick_last_entity(cfs_rq);
> +               if (last) {
> +                       se->vruntime = last->vruntime;
> +                       update_min_vruntime(cfs_rq);
> +               }
> +
> +               cfs_rq->skip = se;
> +       }
>  }
>
>  /*
> --
> 2.25.1
>

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> always be skiped when there are tasks in rq. 

So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
B runs forever and starves A?

> As a result, the task's
> vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> is almost not updated.

But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
wakeup_gran() behind.

> When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> run for a long time.

I'm not seeing how this could happen, it should never get behind that
far.

Additionally, check_preempt_tick() will explicitly clear the buddies
when it finds the current task has consumed it's ideal slice.

I really cannot see how your scenario can happen.

> In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
> This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.

This is a bad solution, SCHED_IDLE tasks have very low weight and can be
shot really far to the right, leading to other trouble.

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 16:40:33 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.   
> 
> So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> B runs forever and starves A?

If Xuewen has an example program that demonstrates the issue (pinning to a
CPU the two tasks), that could be very useful.

> This is a bad solution, SCHED_IDLE tasks have very low weight and can be
> shot really far to the right, leading to other trouble.

Does SCHED_IDLE tasks have to run on a busy CPU? That is, if you have a
SCHED_OTHER task running in a while loop, a SCHED_IDLE task will still get
runtime on that CPU? I always thought SCHED_IDLE tasks were just background
tasks for running when there was nothing else to run?

-- Steve

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Qais Yousef]

On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq. 
> 
> So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> B runs forever and starves A?

I read it differently.

I understood that there are multiple tasks.

If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
interpretation of 'always run' below).

There are no while(1) task running IIUC.

> 
> > As a result, the task's
> > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > is almost not updated.
> 
> But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> wakeup_gran() behind.

I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
< wakeup_gran()?

> 
> > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > run for a long time.

The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.

I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?

My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.

FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
related too but speculating here.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef

> 
> I'm not seeing how this could happen, it should never get behind that
> far.
> 
> Additionally, check_preempt_tick() will explicitly clear the buddies
> when it finds the current task has consumed it's ideal slice.
> 
> I really cannot see how your scenario can happen.
> 
> > In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
> > This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.
> 
> This is a bad solution, SCHED_IDLE tasks have very low weight and can be
> shot really far to the right, leading to other trouble.
> 

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

Hi

Thanks very much for comments!

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
>
> On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> >
> > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > B runs forever and starves A?
>
> I read it differently.
>
> I understood that there are multiple tasks.
>
> If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> interpretation of 'always run' below).
>
> There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
>
> >
> > > As a result, the task's
> > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > is almost not updated.
> >
> > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > wakeup_gran() behind.
>
> I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> < wakeup_gran()?
>
> >
> > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > run for a long time.
>
> The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
>
> I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
>
> My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.

Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)

>
> FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> related too but speculating here.

Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
android phone.
There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
got scheduled for a long time,
there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
tasks multiple times.
Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
So we suspect that sched_yield affects the task's vruntime, as
previously described，the yield's task's vruntime is too small.

There are some tasks's vruntime as follow:

[status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
[status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
[status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
[status: pend] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
[status: pend] pid: 25498 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395803053
exec_start: 326203046944427 sum_ex: 28759519211
[status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
[status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
[status: pend] pid: 24650 prio: 120 vrun: 17811488667922679996
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4069384
[status: pend] pid: 26082 prio: 120 vrun: 17876565509001103803
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1184039
[status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
[status: pend] pid: 16714 prio: 120 vrun: 18136518279692783235
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53844952
[status: pend] pid: 26188 prio: 120 vrun: 18230794395956633597
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13248612
[status: pend] pid: 17645 prio: 120 vrun: 18348420256270370795
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4774925
[status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
[status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
[status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
[status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
[status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
[status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
[status: pend] pid: 23389 prio: 120 vrun: 1351598627096913799
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1648576
[status: pend] pid: 25118 prio: 124 vrun: 2516103258334576715
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 270423
[status: pend] pid: 26412 prio: 120 vrun: 2674093729417543719
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1851229
[status: pend] pid: 26271 prio: 112 vrun: 2728945479807426354
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 3347695
[status: pend] pid: 24236 prio: 120 vrun: 2919301292085993527
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 5425846
[status: pend] pid: 22077 prio: 120 vrun: 3262582494560783155
exec_start: 325875071065811 sum_ex: 177555259
[status: pend] pid: 18951 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053787829
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2634964
[status: pend] pid: 18957 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053920593
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 95538
[status: pend] pid: 18914 prio: 131 vrun: 3532786465880282335
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 6374535
[status: pend] pid: 17595 prio: 120 vrun: 4839728055620845452
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 29559732
[status: pend] pid: 32520 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873672841711178
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 21486313
[status: pend] pid: 24287 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873673743456663
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 757778741
[status: pend] pid: 25544 prio: 120 vrun: 6050206507780284054
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13624309
[status: pend] pid: 26049 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859778903604771
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20931577
[status: pend] pid: 26848 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859796032488859
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2541963
[status: pend] pid: 21450 prio: 120 vrun: 6451880484497196814
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 83490289
[status: pend] pid: 15765 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764142283860
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1481737271
[status: pend] pid: 16366 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764269019562
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 952608921
[status: pend] pid: 16086 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764301244958
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 37393777
[status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
[status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809
[status: pend] pid: 14098 prio: 120 vrun: 7018832854764682872
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 32975920
[status: pend] pid: 26860 prio: 116 vrun: 7086059821707649029
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246173830


Thanks！
BR
>
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Qais Yousef
>
> >
> > I'm not seeing how this could happen, it should never get behind that
> > far.
> >
> > Additionally, check_preempt_tick() will explicitly clear the buddies
> > when it finds the current task has consumed it's ideal slice.
> >
> > I really cannot see how your scenario can happen.
> >
> > > In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
> > > This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.
> >
> > This is a bad solution, SCHED_IDLE tasks have very low weight and can be
> > shot really far to the right, leading to other trouble.
> >

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Vincent Guittot]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks very much for comments!
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > >
> > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > B runs forever and starves A?
> >
> > I read it differently.
> >
> > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> >
> > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> >
> > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> >
> > >
> > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > is almost not updated.
> > >
> > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> >
> > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > < wakeup_gran()?
> >
> > >
> > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > run for a long time.
> >
> > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> >
> > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> >
> > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
>
> Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
>
> >
> > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > related too but speculating here.
>
> Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> android phone.
> There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> got scheduled for a long time,
> there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> tasks multiple times.
> Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.

If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime

> So we suspect that sched_yield affects the task's vruntime, as
> previously described，the yield's task's vruntime is too small.
>
> There are some tasks's vruntime as follow:
>
> [status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
> [status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> [status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
> exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
> [status: pend] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> [status: pend] pid: 25498 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395803053
> exec_start: 326203046944427 sum_ex: 28759519211
> [status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
> [status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
> [status: pend] pid: 24650 prio: 120 vrun: 17811488667922679996
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4069384
> [status: pend] pid: 26082 prio: 120 vrun: 17876565509001103803
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1184039
> [status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
> [status: pend] pid: 16714 prio: 120 vrun: 18136518279692783235
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53844952
> [status: pend] pid: 26188 prio: 120 vrun: 18230794395956633597
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13248612
> [status: pend] pid: 17645 prio: 120 vrun: 18348420256270370795
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4774925
> [status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
> [status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
> [status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
> [status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
> [status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
> [status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
> [status: pend] pid: 23389 prio: 120 vrun: 1351598627096913799
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1648576
> [status: pend] pid: 25118 prio: 124 vrun: 2516103258334576715
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 270423
> [status: pend] pid: 26412 prio: 120 vrun: 2674093729417543719
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1851229
> [status: pend] pid: 26271 prio: 112 vrun: 2728945479807426354
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 3347695
> [status: pend] pid: 24236 prio: 120 vrun: 2919301292085993527
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 5425846
> [status: pend] pid: 22077 prio: 120 vrun: 3262582494560783155
> exec_start: 325875071065811 sum_ex: 177555259
> [status: pend] pid: 18951 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053787829
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2634964
> [status: pend] pid: 18957 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053920593
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 95538
> [status: pend] pid: 18914 prio: 131 vrun: 3532786465880282335
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 6374535
> [status: pend] pid: 17595 prio: 120 vrun: 4839728055620845452
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 29559732
> [status: pend] pid: 32520 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873672841711178
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 21486313
> [status: pend] pid: 24287 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873673743456663
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 757778741
> [status: pend] pid: 25544 prio: 120 vrun: 6050206507780284054
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13624309
> [status: pend] pid: 26049 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859778903604771
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20931577
> [status: pend] pid: 26848 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859796032488859
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2541963
> [status: pend] pid: 21450 prio: 120 vrun: 6451880484497196814
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 83490289
> [status: pend] pid: 15765 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764142283860
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1481737271
> [status: pend] pid: 16366 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764269019562
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 952608921
> [status: pend] pid: 16086 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764301244958
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 37393777
> [status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
> [status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809
> [status: pend] pid: 14098 prio: 120 vrun: 7018832854764682872
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 32975920
> [status: pend] pid: 26860 prio: 116 vrun: 7086059821707649029
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246173830
>
>
> Thanks！
> BR
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Qais Yousef
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not seeing how this could happen, it should never get behind that
> > > far.
> > >
> > > Additionally, check_preempt_tick() will explicitly clear the buddies
> > > when it finds the current task has consumed it's ideal slice.
> > >
> > > I really cannot see how your scenario can happen.
> > >
> > > > In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
> > > > This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.
> > >
> > > This is a bad solution, SCHED_IDLE tasks have very low weight and can be
> > > shot really far to the right, leading to other trouble.
> > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

Hi Vincent

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Thanks very much for comments!
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > > >
> > > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > > B runs forever and starves A?
> > >
> > > I read it differently.
> > >
> > > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> > >
> > > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> > >
> > > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > > is almost not updated.
> > > >
> > > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> > >
> > > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > > < wakeup_gran()?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > > run for a long time.
> > >
> > > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> > >
> > > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> > >
> > > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
> >
> > Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > > related too but speculating here.
> >
> > Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> > android phone.
> > There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> > got scheduled for a long time,
> > there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> > tasks multiple times.
> > Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> > greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
>
> If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
> compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
> must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
> to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
> schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime

All the tasks belong to the same cgroup.

Thanks！

>
> > So we suspect that sched_yield affects the task's vruntime, as
> > previously described，the yield's task's vruntime is too small.
> >
> > There are some tasks's vruntime as follow:
> >
> > [status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
> > [status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> > exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> > [status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
> > exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
> > [status: pend] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> > exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> > [status: pend] pid: 25498 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395803053
> > exec_start: 326203046944427 sum_ex: 28759519211
> > [status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
> > [status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
> > [status: pend] pid: 24650 prio: 120 vrun: 17811488667922679996
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4069384
> > [status: pend] pid: 26082 prio: 120 vrun: 17876565509001103803
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1184039
> > [status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
> > [status: pend] pid: 16714 prio: 120 vrun: 18136518279692783235
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53844952
> > [status: pend] pid: 26188 prio: 120 vrun: 18230794395956633597
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13248612
> > [status: pend] pid: 17645 prio: 120 vrun: 18348420256270370795
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4774925
> > [status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
> > [status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
> > [status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
> > [status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
> > [status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
> > [status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
> > [status: pend] pid: 23389 prio: 120 vrun: 1351598627096913799
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1648576
> > [status: pend] pid: 25118 prio: 124 vrun: 2516103258334576715
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 270423
> > [status: pend] pid: 26412 prio: 120 vrun: 2674093729417543719
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1851229
> > [status: pend] pid: 26271 prio: 112 vrun: 2728945479807426354
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 3347695
> > [status: pend] pid: 24236 prio: 120 vrun: 2919301292085993527
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 5425846
> > [status: pend] pid: 22077 prio: 120 vrun: 3262582494560783155
> > exec_start: 325875071065811 sum_ex: 177555259
> > [status: pend] pid: 18951 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053787829
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2634964
> > [status: pend] pid: 18957 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053920593
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 95538
> > [status: pend] pid: 18914 prio: 131 vrun: 3532786465880282335
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 6374535
> > [status: pend] pid: 17595 prio: 120 vrun: 4839728055620845452
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 29559732
> > [status: pend] pid: 32520 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873672841711178
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 21486313
> > [status: pend] pid: 24287 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873673743456663
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 757778741
> > [status: pend] pid: 25544 prio: 120 vrun: 6050206507780284054
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13624309
> > [status: pend] pid: 26049 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859778903604771
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20931577
> > [status: pend] pid: 26848 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859796032488859
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2541963
> > [status: pend] pid: 21450 prio: 120 vrun: 6451880484497196814
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 83490289
> > [status: pend] pid: 15765 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764142283860
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1481737271
> > [status: pend] pid: 16366 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764269019562
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 952608921
> > [status: pend] pid: 16086 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764301244958
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 37393777
> > [status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
> > [status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809
> > [status: pend] pid: 14098 prio: 120 vrun: 7018832854764682872
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 32975920
> > [status: pend] pid: 26860 prio: 116 vrun: 7086059821707649029
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246173830
> >
> >
> > Thanks！
> > BR
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qais Yousef
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not seeing how this could happen, it should never get behind that
> > > > far.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, check_preempt_tick() will explicitly clear the buddies
> > > > when it finds the current task has consumed it's ideal slice.
> > > >
> > > > I really cannot see how your scenario can happen.
> > > >
> > > > > In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
> > > > > This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.
> > > >
> > > > This is a bad solution, SCHED_IDLE tasks have very low weight and can be
> > > > shot really far to the right, leading to other trouble.
> > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Vincent Guittot]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for comments!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > > > B runs forever and starves A?
> > > >
> > > > I read it differently.
> > > >
> > > > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> > > >
> > > > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > > > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > > > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > > > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> > > >
> > > > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > > > is almost not updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > > > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > > > < wakeup_gran()?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > > > run for a long time.
> > > >
> > > > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > > > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> > > >
> > > > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> > > >
> > > > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
> > >
> > > Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > > > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > > > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > > > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > > > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > > > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > > > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > > > related too but speculating here.
> > >
> > > Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> > > android phone.
> > > There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> > > got scheduled for a long time,
> > > there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> > > tasks multiple times.
> > > Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> > > greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
> >
> > If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
> > compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
> > must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
> > to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
> > schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime
>
> All the tasks belong to the same cgroup.

ok.
I have tried to reproduce your problem but can't see it so far. I'm
probably missing something.

With rt-app, I start:
- 3 tasks A, B, C which are always running
- 1 task D which always runs but yields every 1ms for 1000 times and
then stops yielding and always run

All tasks are pinned on the same cpu in the same cgroup.

I don't see anything wrong.
task A, B, C runs their slices
task D is preempted by others after 1ms for a couple of times when it
calls yield. Then the yield doesn't have effect and task D runs a few
consecutive ms although the yield. Then task D restart to be preempted
by others when it calls yield when its vruntime is close to others

Once task D stop calling yield, the 4 tasks runs normally

Vincent
>
> Thanks！
>
> >
> > > So we suspect that sched_yield affects the task's vruntime, as
> > > previously described，the yield's task's vruntime is too small.
> > >
> > > There are some tasks's vruntime as follow:
> > >
> > > [status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
> > > [status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> > > exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
> > > exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> > > exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25498 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395803053
> > > exec_start: 326203046944427 sum_ex: 28759519211
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
> > > [status: pend] pid: 24650 prio: 120 vrun: 17811488667922679996
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4069384
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26082 prio: 120 vrun: 17876565509001103803
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1184039
> > > [status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
> > > [status: pend] pid: 16714 prio: 120 vrun: 18136518279692783235
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53844952
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26188 prio: 120 vrun: 18230794395956633597
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13248612
> > > [status: pend] pid: 17645 prio: 120 vrun: 18348420256270370795
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 4774925
> > > [status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
> > > [status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
> > > [status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
> > > [status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
> > > [status: pend] pid: 23389 prio: 120 vrun: 1351598627096913799
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1648576
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25118 prio: 124 vrun: 2516103258334576715
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 270423
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26412 prio: 120 vrun: 2674093729417543719
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1851229
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26271 prio: 112 vrun: 2728945479807426354
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 3347695
> > > [status: pend] pid: 24236 prio: 120 vrun: 2919301292085993527
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 5425846
> > > [status: pend] pid: 22077 prio: 120 vrun: 3262582494560783155
> > > exec_start: 325875071065811 sum_ex: 177555259
> > > [status: pend] pid: 18951 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053787829
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2634964
> > > [status: pend] pid: 18957 prio: 120 vrun: 3532786464053920593
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 95538
> > > [status: pend] pid: 18914 prio: 131 vrun: 3532786465880282335
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 6374535
> > > [status: pend] pid: 17595 prio: 120 vrun: 4839728055620845452
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 29559732
> > > [status: pend] pid: 32520 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873672841711178
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 21486313
> > > [status: pend] pid: 24287 prio: 120 vrun: 5701873673743456663
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 757778741
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25544 prio: 120 vrun: 6050206507780284054
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 13624309
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26049 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859778903604771
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20931577
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26848 prio: 130 vrun: 6144859796032488859
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2541963
> > > [status: pend] pid: 21450 prio: 120 vrun: 6451880484497196814
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 83490289
> > > [status: pend] pid: 15765 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764142283860
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1481737271
> > > [status: pend] pid: 16366 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764269019562
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 952608921
> > > [status: pend] pid: 16086 prio: 120 vrun: 6479239764301244958
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 37393777
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809
> > > [status: pend] pid: 14098 prio: 120 vrun: 7018832854764682872
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 32975920
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26860 prio: 116 vrun: 7086059821707649029
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246173830
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks！
> > > BR
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Qais Yousef
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not seeing how this could happen, it should never get behind that
> > > > > far.
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, check_preempt_tick() will explicitly clear the buddies
> > > > > when it finds the current task has consumed it's ideal slice.
> > > > >
> > > > > I really cannot see how your scenario can happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In order to mitigate this, update the yield_task's vruntime to be cfs's max vruntime.
> > > > > > This way, the cfs's min vruntime can be updated as the process running.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a bad solution, SCHED_IDLE tasks have very low weight and can be
> > > > > shot really far to the right, leading to other trouble.
> > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Qais Yousef]

On 02/28/23 10:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vincent
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for comments!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > > > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > > > > B runs forever and starves A?
> > > > >
> > > > > I read it differently.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > > > > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > > > > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > > > > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > > > > is almost not updated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > > > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > > > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > > > > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > > > > < wakeup_gran()?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > > > > run for a long time.
> > > > >
> > > > > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > > > > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> > > > >
> > > > > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > > > > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > > > > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > > > > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > > > > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > > > > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > > > > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > > > > related too but speculating here.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> > > > android phone.
> > > > There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> > > > got scheduled for a long time,
> > > > there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> > > > tasks multiple times.
> > > > Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> > > > greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
> > >
> > > If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
> > > compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
> > > must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
> > > to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
> > > schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime
> >
> > All the tasks belong to the same cgroup.

Could they move between cpusets though?

> 
> ok.
> I have tried to reproduce your problem but can't see it so far. I'm
> probably missing something.
> 
> With rt-app, I start:
> - 3 tasks A, B, C which are always running
> - 1 task D which always runs but yields every 1ms for 1000 times and
> then stops yielding and always run
> 
> All tasks are pinned on the same cpu in the same cgroup.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong.
> task A, B, C runs their slices
> task D is preempted by others after 1ms for a couple of times when it
> calls yield. Then the yield doesn't have effect and task D runs a few
> consecutive ms although the yield. Then task D restart to be preempted
> by others when it calls yield when its vruntime is close to others
> 
> Once task D stop calling yield, the 4 tasks runs normally

Could vruntime be inflated if a task gets stuck on a little core for a while
(where it'll run slower) then compared to another task running on a bigger core
the vruntime will appear smaller for the latter?


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Vincent Guittot]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 14:31, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
>
> On 02/28/23 10:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vincent
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM Vincent Guittot
> > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for comments!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > > > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > > > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > > > > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > > > > > B runs forever and starves A?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read it differently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > > > > > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > > > > > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > > > > > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > > > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > > > > > is almost not updated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > > > > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > > > > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > > > > > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > > > > > < wakeup_gran()?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > > > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > > > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > > > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > > > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > > > > > run for a long time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > > > > > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > > > > > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > > > > > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > > > > > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > > > > > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > > > > > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > > > > > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > > > > > related too but speculating here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> > > > > android phone.
> > > > > There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> > > > > got scheduled for a long time,
> > > > > there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> > > > > tasks multiple times.
> > > > > Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> > > > > greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
> > > >
> > > > If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
> > > > compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
> > > > must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
> > > > to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
> > > > schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime
> > >
> > > All the tasks belong to the same cgroup.
>
> Could they move between cpusets though?

I have pinned them on same  CPU to force the contention

>
> >
> > ok.
> > I have tried to reproduce your problem but can't see it so far. I'm
> > probably missing something.
> >
> > With rt-app, I start:
> > - 3 tasks A, B, C which are always running
> > - 1 task D which always runs but yields every 1ms for 1000 times and
> > then stops yielding and always run
> >
> > All tasks are pinned on the same cpu in the same cgroup.
> >
> > I don't see anything wrong.
> > task A, B, C runs their slices
> > task D is preempted by others after 1ms for a couple of times when it
> > calls yield. Then the yield doesn't have effect and task D runs a few
> > consecutive ms although the yield. Then task D restart to be preempted
> > by others when it calls yield when its vruntime is close to others
> >
> > Once task D stop calling yield, the 4 tasks runs normally
>
> Could vruntime be inflated if a task gets stuck on a little core for a while
> (where it'll run slower) then compared to another task running on a bigger core
> the vruntime will appear smaller for the latter?

vruntime is not scaled by cpu capacity and is "normalized" before the
task migrates to another cpu so there is no reason to see an impact
because on running on little or migrating

>
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

Hi Vincent

I noticed the following patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u

The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
grateful if you could give us some advice.
I would try this patch in our tree.

Thanks！
BR

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:45 PM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 14:31, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/28/23 10:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vincent
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM Vincent Guittot
> > > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks very much for comments!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > > > > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > > > > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > > > > > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > > > > > > B runs forever and starves A?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I read it differently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > > > > > > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > > > > > > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > > > > > > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > > > > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > > > > > > is almost not updated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > > > > > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > > > > > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > > > > > > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > > > > > > < wakeup_gran()?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > > > > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > > > > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > > > > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > > > > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > > > > > > run for a long time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > > > > > > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > > > > > > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > > > > > > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > > > > > > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > > > > > > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > > > > > > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > > > > > > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > > > > > > related too but speculating here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> > > > > > android phone.
> > > > > > There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> > > > > > got scheduled for a long time,
> > > > > > there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> > > > > > tasks multiple times.
> > > > > > Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> > > > > > greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
> > > > > compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
> > > > > must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
> > > > > to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
> > > > > schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime
> > > >
> > > > All the tasks belong to the same cgroup.
> >
> > Could they move between cpusets though?
>
> I have pinned them on same  CPU to force the contention
>
> >
> > >
> > > ok.
> > > I have tried to reproduce your problem but can't see it so far. I'm
> > > probably missing something.
> > >
> > > With rt-app, I start:
> > > - 3 tasks A, B, C which are always running
> > > - 1 task D which always runs but yields every 1ms for 1000 times and
> > > then stops yielding and always run
> > >
> > > All tasks are pinned on the same cpu in the same cgroup.
> > >
> > > I don't see anything wrong.
> > > task A, B, C runs their slices
> > > task D is preempted by others after 1ms for a couple of times when it
> > > calls yield. Then the yield doesn't have effect and task D runs a few
> > > consecutive ms although the yield. Then task D restart to be preempted
> > > by others when it calls yield when its vruntime is close to others
> > >
> > > Once task D stop calling yield, the 4 tasks runs normally
> >
> > Could vruntime be inflated if a task gets stuck on a little core for a while
> > (where it'll run slower) then compared to another task running on a bigger core
> > the vruntime will appear smaller for the latter?
>
> vruntime is not scaled by cpu capacity and is "normalized" before the
> task migrates to another cpu so there is no reason to see an impact
> because on running on little or migrating
>
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Vincent Guittot]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent
>
> I noticed the following patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
> And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
>
> The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
> that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
> Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
> grateful if you could give us some advice.
> I would try this patch in our tree.

By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
task is not fully covered by both patches.

This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
aligned with the description of your use case

Vincent
>
> Thanks！
> BR
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:45 PM Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 14:31, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/28/23 10:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vincent
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM Vincent Guittot
> > > > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks very much for comments!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > > > > > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > > > > > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > > > > > > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > > > > > > > B runs forever and starves A?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I read it differently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > > > > > > > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > > > > > > > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > > > > > > > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > > > > > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > > > > > > > is almost not updated.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > > > > > > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > > > > > > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > > > > > > > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > > > > > > > < wakeup_gran()?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > > > > > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > > > > > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > > > > > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > > > > > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > > > > > > > run for a long time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > > > > > > > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > > > > > > > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > > > > > > > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > > > > > > > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > > > > > > > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > > > > > > > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > > > > > > > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > > > > > > > related too but speculating here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> > > > > > > android phone.
> > > > > > > There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> > > > > > > got scheduled for a long time,
> > > > > > > there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> > > > > > > tasks multiple times.
> > > > > > > Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> > > > > > > greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
> > > > > > compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
> > > > > > must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
> > > > > > to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
> > > > > > schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime
> > > > >
> > > > > All the tasks belong to the same cgroup.
> > >
> > > Could they move between cpusets though?
> >
> > I have pinned them on same  CPU to force the contention
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ok.
> > > > I have tried to reproduce your problem but can't see it so far. I'm
> > > > probably missing something.
> > > >
> > > > With rt-app, I start:
> > > > - 3 tasks A, B, C which are always running
> > > > - 1 task D which always runs but yields every 1ms for 1000 times and
> > > > then stops yielding and always run
> > > >
> > > > All tasks are pinned on the same cpu in the same cgroup.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anything wrong.
> > > > task A, B, C runs their slices
> > > > task D is preempted by others after 1ms for a couple of times when it
> > > > calls yield. Then the yield doesn't have effect and task D runs a few
> > > > consecutive ms although the yield. Then task D restart to be preempted
> > > > by others when it calls yield when its vruntime is close to others
> > > >
> > > > Once task D stop calling yield, the 4 tasks runs normally
> > >
> > > Could vruntime be inflated if a task gets stuck on a little core for a while
> > > (where it'll run slower) then compared to another task running on a bigger core
> > > the vruntime will appear smaller for the latter?
> >
> > vruntime is not scaled by cpu capacity and is "normalized" before the
> > task migrates to another cpu so there is no reason to see an impact
> > because on running on little or migrating
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vincent
> >
> > I noticed the following patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
> > And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> >
> > The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
> > that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
> > Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
> > grateful if you could give us some advice.
> > I would try this patch in our tree.
>
> By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
> matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
> task is not fully covered by both patches.

Okay, Thank you very much!

>
> This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
> of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
> aligned with the description of your use case

Thanks for the clarification! We would try it first to see whether it
could resolve our problem.

Thanks!
BR
---
xuewen

>
> Vincent
> >
> > Thanks！
> > BR
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:45 PM Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 14:31, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 02/28/23 10:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Vincent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM Vincent Guittot
> > > > > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks very much for comments!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:33 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 02/27/23 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:03:14PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > When task call the sched_yield, cfs would set the cfs's skip buddy.
> > > > > > > > > > > If there is no other task call the sched_yield syscall, the task would
> > > > > > > > > > > always be skiped when there are tasks in rq.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So you have two tasks A) which does sched_yield() and becomes ->skip,
> > > > > > > > > > and B) which is while(1). And you're saying that once A does it's thing,
> > > > > > > > > > B runs forever and starves A?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I read it differently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I understood that there are multiple tasks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If Task A becomes ->skip; then it seems other tasks will continue to be picked
> > > > > > > > > instead. Until another task B calls sched_yield() and become ->skip, then Task
> > > > > > > > > A is picked but with wrong vruntime causing it to run for multiple ticks (my
> > > > > > > > > interpretation of 'always run' below).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are no while(1) task running IIUC.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As a result, the task's
> > > > > > > > > > > vruntime would not be updated for long time, and the cfs's min_vruntime
> > > > > > > > > > > is almost not updated.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But the condition in pick_next_entity() should ensure that we still pick
> > > > > > > > > > ->skip when it becomes too old. Specifically, when it gets more than
> > > > > > > > > > wakeup_gran() behind.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure I can see it either. Maybe __pick_first_entity() doesn't return
> > > > > > > > > the skipped one, or for some reason vdiff for second is almost always
> > > > > > > > > < wakeup_gran()?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When this scenario happens, when the yield task had wait for a long time,
> > > > > > > > > > > and other tasks run a long time, once there is other task call the sched_yield,
> > > > > > > > > > > the cfs's skip_buddy is covered, at this time, the first task can run normally,
> > > > > > > > > > > but the task's vruntime is small, as a result, the task would always run,
> > > > > > > > > > > because other task's vruntime is big. This would lead to other tasks can not
> > > > > > > > > > > run for a long time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The error seems that when Task A finally runs - it consumes more than its fair
> > > > > > > > > bit of sched_slice() as it looks it was starved.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think the question is why it was starved? Can you shed some light Xuewen?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My attempt to help to clarify :) I have read this just like you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for Qais's clarify. And that's exactly what I want to say:)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > FWIW I have seen a report of something similar, but I didn't managed to
> > > > > > > > > reproduce and debug (mostly due to ENOBANDWIDTH); and not sure if the details
> > > > > > > > > are similar to what Xuewen is seeing. But there was a task starving for
> > > > > > > > > multiple ticks - RUNNABLE but never RUNNING in spite of other tasks getting
> > > > > > > > > scheduled in instead multiple times. ie: there was a task RUNNING for most of
> > > > > > > > > the time, and I could see it preempted by other tasks multiple time, but not by
> > > > > > > > > the starving RUNNABLE task that is hung on the rq. It seems to be vruntime
> > > > > > > > > related too but speculating here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, now we met the similar scenario when running a monkey test on the
> > > > > > > > android phone.
> > > > > > > > There are multiple tasks on cpu, but the runnable task could not be
> > > > > > > > got scheduled for a long time,
> > > > > > > > there is task running and we could see the task preempted by other
> > > > > > > > tasks multiple times.
> > > > > > > > Then we dump the tasks, and find the vruntime of each task varies
> > > > > > > > greatly, and the task which running call the sched_yield frequently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I'm not wrong you are using cgroups and as a result you can't
> > > > > > > compare the vruntime of tasks that belongs to different group, you
> > > > > > > must compare the vruntime of entities at the same level. We might have
> > > > > > > to look the side because I can't see why the task would not be
> > > > > > > schedule if other tasks in the same group move forward their vruntime
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the tasks belong to the same cgroup.
> > > >
> > > > Could they move between cpusets though?
> > >
> > > I have pinned them on same  CPU to force the contention
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ok.
> > > > > I have tried to reproduce your problem but can't see it so far. I'm
> > > > > probably missing something.
> > > > >
> > > > > With rt-app, I start:
> > > > > - 3 tasks A, B, C which are always running
> > > > > - 1 task D which always runs but yields every 1ms for 1000 times and
> > > > > then stops yielding and always run
> > > > >
> > > > > All tasks are pinned on the same cpu in the same cgroup.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see anything wrong.
> > > > > task A, B, C runs their slices
> > > > > task D is preempted by others after 1ms for a couple of times when it
> > > > > calls yield. Then the yield doesn't have effect and task D runs a few
> > > > > consecutive ms although the yield. Then task D restart to be preempted
> > > > > by others when it calls yield when its vruntime is close to others
> > > > >
> > > > > Once task D stop calling yield, the 4 tasks runs normally
> > > >
> > > > Could vruntime be inflated if a task gets stuck on a little core for a while
> > > > (where it'll run slower) then compared to another task running on a bigger core
> > > > the vruntime will appear smaller for the latter?
> > >
> > > vruntime is not scaled by cpu capacity and is "normalized" before the
> > > task migrates to another cpu so there is no reason to see an impact
> > > because on running on little or migrating
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Dietmar Eggemann]

Hi Xuewen,

On 01/03/2023 09:20, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vincent
>>>
>>> I noticed the following patch:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
>>> And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
>>>
>>> The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
>>> that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
>>> Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
>>> grateful if you could give us some advice.
>>> I would try this patch in our tree.
>>
>> By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
>> matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
>> task is not fully covered by both patches.
> 
> Okay, Thank you very much!
> 
>>
>> This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
>> of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
>> aligned with the description of your use case
> 
> Thanks for the clarification! We would try it first to see whether it
> could resolve our problem.

Can you not run Vincent's rt-app example on your device and then report
`cat /sys/kernel/debug/sched/debug` of the CPU?

# rt-app /root/rt-app/cfs_yield.json

# cat /sys/kernel/debug/sched/debug
...
cpu#2
  .nr_running                    : 4
  ...
  .curr->pid                     : 2121
  ...

cfs_rq[2]:/autogroup-15
  .exec_clock                    : 0.000000
  .MIN_vruntime                  : 32428.281204
  .min_vruntime                  : 32428.281204
  .max_vruntime                  : 32434.997784
  ...
  .nr_running                    : 4
  .h_nr_running                  : 4

...

 S            task   PID         tree-key  switches  prio     wait-time             sum-exec        sum-sleep
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 S         cpuhp/2    22      1304.405864        13   120         0.000000         0.270000         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
 S     migration/2    23         0.000000         8     0         0.000000         7.460940         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
 S     ksoftirqd/2    24    137721.092326        46   120         0.000000         1.821880         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
 I    kworker/2:0H    26      2116.827393         4   100         0.000000         0.057220         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
 I     kworker/2:1    45    204539.183593       322   120         0.000000       447.975440         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
 I     kworker/2:3    80      1778.668364        33   120         0.000000        16.237320         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
 I    kworker/2:1H   239    199388.093936        74   100         0.000000         1.892300         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
 R         taskA-0  2120     32428.281204       582   120         0.000000      1109.911280         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15
>R         taskB-1  2121     32430.693304       265   120         0.000000      1103.527660         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15
 R         taskB-2  2122     32432.137084       264   120         0.000000      1105.006760         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15
 R         taskB-3  2123     32434.997784       282   120         0.000000      1115.965120         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15

...

Not sure how Vincent's rt-app file looks like exactly but I crafted
something quick here:

{
        "tasks" : {
                "taskA" : {
                        "cpus" : [2],
                        "yield" : "taskA",
                        "run" : 1000
                },
                "taskB" : {
                        "instance" : 3, 
                        "cpus" : [2],
                        "run" : 1000000
                }
        },
        "global" : { 
                "calibration" : 156,
                "default_policy" : "SCHED_OTHER",
                "duration" : 20
        }
} 

[...]

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Vincent Guittot]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 12:23, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Xuewen,
>
> On 01/03/2023 09:20, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Vincent
> >>>
> >>> I noticed the following patch:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
> >>> And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> >>>
> >>> The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
> >>> that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
> >>> Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
> >>> grateful if you could give us some advice.
> >>> I would try this patch in our tree.
> >>
> >> By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
> >> matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
> >> task is not fully covered by both patches.
> >
> > Okay, Thank you very much!
> >
> >>
> >> This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
> >> of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
> >> aligned with the description of your use case
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification! We would try it first to see whether it
> > could resolve our problem.
>
> Can you not run Vincent's rt-app example on your device and then report
> `cat /sys/kernel/debug/sched/debug` of the CPU?
>
> # rt-app /root/rt-app/cfs_yield.json
>
> # cat /sys/kernel/debug/sched/debug
> ...
> cpu#2
>   .nr_running                    : 4
>   ...
>   .curr->pid                     : 2121
>   ...
>
> cfs_rq[2]:/autogroup-15
>   .exec_clock                    : 0.000000
>   .MIN_vruntime                  : 32428.281204
>   .min_vruntime                  : 32428.281204
>   .max_vruntime                  : 32434.997784
>   ...
>   .nr_running                    : 4
>   .h_nr_running                  : 4
>
> ...
>
>  S            task   PID         tree-key  switches  prio     wait-time             sum-exec        sum-sleep
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  S         cpuhp/2    22      1304.405864        13   120         0.000000         0.270000         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
>  S     migration/2    23         0.000000         8     0         0.000000         7.460940         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
>  S     ksoftirqd/2    24    137721.092326        46   120         0.000000         1.821880         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
>  I    kworker/2:0H    26      2116.827393         4   100         0.000000         0.057220         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
>  I     kworker/2:1    45    204539.183593       322   120         0.000000       447.975440         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
>  I     kworker/2:3    80      1778.668364        33   120         0.000000        16.237320         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
>  I    kworker/2:1H   239    199388.093936        74   100         0.000000         1.892300         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /
>  R         taskA-0  2120     32428.281204       582   120         0.000000      1109.911280         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15
> >R         taskB-1  2121     32430.693304       265   120         0.000000      1103.527660         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15
>  R         taskB-2  2122     32432.137084       264   120         0.000000      1105.006760         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15
>  R         taskB-3  2123     32434.997784       282   120         0.000000      1115.965120         0.000000         0.000000 0 0 /autogroup-15
>
> ...
>
> Not sure how Vincent's rt-app file looks like exactly but I crafted
> something quick here:

it was quite similar to yours below. I have just stopped to call yield
after few seconds to see if the behavior changed

>
> {
>         "tasks" : {
>                 "taskA" : {
>                         "cpus" : [2],
>                         "yield" : "taskA",
>                         "run" : 1000
>                 },
>                 "taskB" : {
>                         "instance" : 3,
>                         "cpus" : [2],
>                         "run" : 1000000
>                 }
>         },
>         "global" : {
>                 "calibration" : 156,
>                 "default_policy" : "SCHED_OTHER",
>                 "duration" : 20
>         }
> }
>
> [...]

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Qais Yousef]

Hi Xuewen

On 03/01/23 16:20, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vincent
> > >
> > > I noticed the following patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
> > > And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > >
> > > The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
> > > that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
> > > Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
> > > grateful if you could give us some advice.
> > > I would try this patch in our tree.
> >
> > By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
> > matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
> > task is not fully covered by both patches.
> 
> Okay, Thank you very much!
> 
> >
> > This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
> > of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
> > aligned with the description of your use case
> 
> Thanks for the clarification! We would try it first to see whether it
> could resolve our problem.

Did you get a chance to see if that patch help? It'd be good to backport it to
LTS if it does.


Thanks

--
Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

Hi Vincent

I have some questions to ask，and hope you can help.

For this problem, In our platform, We found that the vruntime of some
tasks will become abnormal over time, resulting in tasks with abnormal
vruntime not being scheduled.
The following are some tasks in runqueue:
[status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
[status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
[status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
[status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
[status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
[status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
[status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
[status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
[status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
[status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
[status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
[status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
...
[status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
[status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809

And According to your suggestion, we test the patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
The above exception is gone.

But when  we tested using patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
and
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230317160810.107988-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
Unfortunately, our issue occurred again.

So we  have to use a workaround solution to our problem, that is to
change the sleeping time's judgement to 60s.
+
+ sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
+ if (sleep_time > ((1ULL << 63) / scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD)))
+ return true;

to

+ sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
+if ((s64)sleep_time > 60LL * NSEC_PER_SEC)
+ return true;

At this time, the issue also did not occur again.

But this modification doesn't actually solve the real problem. And then
Qais suggested us to try this patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190709115759.10451-1-chris.redpath@arm.com/T/#u

And  we tested the patch(android phone, monkey test with 60 apk, 7days).
 It did not reproduce the previous problem.

We would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the patch
and help see what goes wrong.

Thanks!
BR

---
xuewen

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:40 PM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Xuewen
>
> On 03/01/23 16:20, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vincent
> > > >
> > > > I noticed the following patch:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
> > > > And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > > >
> > > > The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
> > > > that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
> > > > Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
> > > > grateful if you could give us some advice.
> > > > I would try this patch in our tree.
> > >
> > > By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
> > > matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
> > > task is not fully covered by both patches.
> >
> > Okay, Thank you very much!
> >
> > >
> > > This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
> > > of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
> > > aligned with the description of your use case
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification! We would try it first to see whether it
> > could resolve our problem.
>
> Did you get a chance to see if that patch help? It'd be good to backport it to
> LTS if it does.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Vincent Guittot]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 09:51, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent
>
> I have some questions to ask，and hope you can help.
>
> For this problem, In our platform, We found that the vruntime of some
> tasks will become abnormal over time, resulting in tasks with abnormal
> vruntime not being scheduled.
> The following are some tasks in runqueue:
> [status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
> [status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> [status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
> exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
> [status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
> [status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
> [status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
> [status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
> [status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
> [status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
> [status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
> [status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
> [status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
> ...
> [status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
> [status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
> exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809
>
> And According to your suggestion, we test the patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> The above exception is gone.
>
> But when  we tested using patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> and
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230317160810.107988-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
> Unfortunately, our issue occurred again.
>
> So we  have to use a workaround solution to our problem, that is to
> change the sleeping time's judgement to 60s.
> +
> + sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
> + if (sleep_time > ((1ULL << 63) / scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD)))
> + return true;
>
> to
>
> + sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
> +if ((s64)sleep_time > 60LL * NSEC_PER_SEC)
> + return true;
>
> At this time, the issue also did not occur again.
>
> But this modification doesn't actually solve the real problem. And then

yes, it resetx the task's vruntime once the delta go above 60sec but
your problem is still there

> Qais suggested us to try this patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190709115759.10451-1-chris.redpath@arm.com/T/#u

we have the below in v6.0 to fix the problem of stalled clock update
instead of the above
commit e2f3e35f1f5a ("sched/fair: Decay task PELT values during wakeup
migration")

Which kernel version are you using ?

>
> And  we tested the patch(android phone, monkey test with 60 apk, 7days).
>  It did not reproduce the previous problem.
>
> We would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the patch
> and help see what goes wrong.

I will look more deeply how your yield task and its vruntime can stay
stalled so long

>
> Thanks!
> BR
>
> ---
> xuewen
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:40 PM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Xuewen
> >
> > On 03/01/23 16:20, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vincent Guittot
> > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vincent
> > > > >
> > > > > I noticed the following patch:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
> > > > > And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
> > > > > that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
> > > > > Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
> > > > > grateful if you could give us some advice.
> > > > > I would try this patch in our tree.
> > > >
> > > > By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
> > > > matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
> > > > task is not fully covered by both patches.
> > >
> > > Okay, Thank you very much!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
> > > > of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
> > > > aligned with the description of your use case
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification! We would try it first to see whether it
> > > could resolve our problem.
> >
> > Did you get a chance to see if that patch help? It'd be good to backport it to
> > LTS if it does.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Xuewen Yan]

Hi Vincent

Thanks for your patience to reply!

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 11:55 PM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 09:51, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vincent
> >
> > I have some questions to ask，and hope you can help.
> >
> > For this problem, In our platform, We found that the vruntime of some
> > tasks will become abnormal over time, resulting in tasks with abnormal
> > vruntime not being scheduled.
> > The following are some tasks in runqueue:
> > [status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
> > [status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> > exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> > [status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
> > exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
> > [status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
> > [status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
> > [status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
> > [status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
> > [status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
> > [status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
> > [status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
> > [status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
> > [status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
> > ...
> > [status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
> > [status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
> > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809
> >
> > And According to your suggestion, we test the patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > The above exception is gone.
> >
> > But when  we tested using patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > and
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230317160810.107988-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
> > Unfortunately, our issue occurred again.
> >
> > So we  have to use a workaround solution to our problem, that is to
> > change the sleeping time's judgement to 60s.
> > +
> > + sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
> > + if (sleep_time > ((1ULL << 63) / scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD)))
> > + return true;
> >
> > to
> >
> > + sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
> > +if ((s64)sleep_time > 60LL * NSEC_PER_SEC)
> > + return true;
> >
> > At this time, the issue also did not occur again.
> >
> > But this modification doesn't actually solve the real problem. And then
>
> yes, it resetx the task's vruntime once the delta go above 60sec but
> your problem is still there
>
> > Qais suggested us to try this patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190709115759.10451-1-chris.redpath@arm.com/T/#u
>
> we have the below in v6.0 to fix the problem of stalled clock update
> instead of the above
> commit e2f3e35f1f5a ("sched/fair: Decay task PELT values during wakeup
> migration")
>
> Which kernel version are you using ?

We test in kernel5.4, and kernel5.15 also seems to have this problem.

And I will later test the  commit e2f3e35f1f5a ("sched/fair: Decay
task PELT values during wakeup migration").

>
> >
> > And  we tested the patch(android phone, monkey test with 60 apk, 7days).
> >  It did not reproduce the previous problem.
> >
> > We would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the patch
> > and help see what goes wrong.
>
> I will look more deeply how your yield task and its vruntime can stay
> stalled so long
>

Thanks Vincent!

BR
> >
> > Thanks!
> > BR
> >
> > ---
> > xuewen
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:40 PM Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Xuewen
> > >
> > > On 03/01/23 16:20, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vincent Guittot
> > > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:30, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Vincent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed the following patch:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
> > > > > > And I notice the V2 had merged to mainline:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The patch fixed the inversing of the vruntime comparison, and I see
> > > > > > that in my case, there also are some vruntime is inverted.
> > > > > > Do you think which patch will work for our scenario? I would be very
> > > > > > grateful if you could give us some advice.
> > > > > > I would try this patch in our tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > By default use the one that is merged; The difference is mainly a
> > > > > matter of time range. Also be aware that the case of newly migrated
> > > > > task is not fully covered by both patches.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, Thank you very much!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch fixes a problem with long sleeping entity in the presence
> > > > > of low weight and always running entities. This doesn't seem to be
> > > > > aligned with the description of your use case
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the clarification! We would try it first to see whether it
> > > > could resolve our problem.
> > >
> > > Did you get a chance to see if that patch help? It'd be good to backport it to
> > > LTS if it does.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qais Yousef

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: update the vruntime to be max vruntime when yield

[Qais Yousef]

On 08/23/23 10:03, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> Hi Vincent
> 
> Thanks for your patience to reply!
> 
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 11:55 PM Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 09:51, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vincent
> > >
> > > I have some questions to ask，and hope you can help.
> > >
> > > For this problem, In our platform, We found that the vruntime of some
> > > tasks will become abnormal over time, resulting in tasks with abnormal
> > > vruntime not being scheduled.
> > > The following are some tasks in runqueue:
> > > [status: curr] pid: 25501 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395799812
> > > [status: skip] pid: 25496 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800756
> > > exec_start: 326203047009312 sum_ex: 29110005599
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25497 prio: 116 vrun: 16426426403395800705
> > > exec_start: 326203047002235 sum_ex: 29110508751
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25321 prio: 130 vrun: 16668783152248554223
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 16198728
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25798 prio: 112 vrun: 17467381818375696015
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 9574265
> > > [status: pend] pid: 22282 prio: 120 vrun: 18010356387391134435
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 53192
> > > [status: pend] pid: 24259 prio: 120 vrun: 359915144918430571
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 20508197
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25988 prio: 120 vrun: 558552749871164416
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2099153
> > > [status: pend] pid: 21857 prio: 124 vrun: 596088822758688878
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 246057024
> > > [status: pend] pid: 26614 prio: 130 vrun: 688210016831095807
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 968307
> > > [status: pend] pid: 14229 prio: 120 vrun: 816756964596474655
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 793001
> > > [status: pend] pid: 23866 prio: 120 vrun: 1313723379399791578
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 1507038
> > > ...
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25970 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180148220001175
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 2531884
> > > [status: pend] pid: 25965 prio: 120 vrun: 6830180150700833203
> > > exec_start: 0 sum_ex: 8031809
> > >
> > > And According to your suggestion, we test the patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > > The above exception is gone.
> > >
> > > But when  we tested using patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230130122216.3555094-1-rkagan@amazon.de/T/#u
> > > and
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230317160810.107988-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
> > > Unfortunately, our issue occurred again.
> > >
> > > So we  have to use a workaround solution to our problem, that is to
> > > change the sleeping time's judgement to 60s.
> > > +
> > > + sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
> > > + if (sleep_time > ((1ULL << 63) / scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD)))
> > > + return true;
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > + sleep_time -= se->exec_start;
> > > +if ((s64)sleep_time > 60LL * NSEC_PER_SEC)
> > > + return true;
> > >
> > > At this time, the issue also did not occur again.
> > >
> > > But this modification doesn't actually solve the real problem. And then
> >
> > yes, it resetx the task's vruntime once the delta go above 60sec but
> > your problem is still there
> >
> > > Qais suggested us to try this patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190709115759.10451-1-chris.redpath@arm.com/T/#u
> >
> > we have the below in v6.0 to fix the problem of stalled clock update
> > instead of the above
> > commit e2f3e35f1f5a ("sched/fair: Decay task PELT values during wakeup
> > migration")
> >
> > Which kernel version are you using ?
> 
> We test in kernel5.4, and kernel5.15 also seems to have this problem.
> 
> And I will later test the  commit e2f3e35f1f5a ("sched/fair: Decay
> task PELT values during wakeup migration").

I think it might be worth to cherry-pick the first two patches of that series
to 5.10 and 5.15 (5.4 is a bit too old for me at least to work with).

Although they've been rare enough, but the util swing problem does pop up every
once in a while. And if it helps with this vruntime it might be a simple thing
to do to cherry pick these two patches after all. I think they'll apply without
a problem - I'll look at this.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef