From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, rkagan@amazon.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:29:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZAs+zV0o9ShO7nLT@vingu-book> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtADUas2QHZCQyu0ad-JTKRQ=PcsB=o7+PuJNVxHwAzkCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Le jeudi 09 mars 2023 à 16:14:38 (+0100), Vincent Guittot a écrit :
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 15:37, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 03:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:34:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then, even if we don't clear exec_start before migrating and keep
> > > > current value to be used in place_entity on the new cpu, we can't
> > > > compare the rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) of 2 different rqs AFAICT
> > >
> > > Blergh -- indeed, irq and steal time can skew them between CPUs :/
> > > I suppose we can fudge that... wait_start (which is basically what we're
> > > making it do) also does that IIRC.
> > >
> > > I really dislike having this placement muck spreadout like proposed.
> >
> > Also, I think we might be over-engineering this, we don't care about
> > accuracy at all, all we really care about is 'long-time'.
>
> you mean taking the patch 1/2 that you mentioned here to add a
> migrated field:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/68832dfbb60fda030540b5f4e39c5801942689b1.1648228023.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com/T/#ma5637eb8010f3f4a4abff778af8db705429d003b
>
> And assume that the divergence between the rq_clock_task() can be ignored ?
>
> That could probably work but we need to replace the (60LL *
> NSEC_PER_SEC) by ((1ULL << 63) / NICE_0_LOAD) because 60sec divergence
> would not be unrealistic.
> and a comment to explain why it's acceptable
Zhang,
Could you try the patch below ?
This is a rebase/merge/update of:
-patch 1/2 above and
-https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230209193107.1432770-1-rkagan@amazon.de/
The proposal accepts a divergence of up to 52 days between the 2 rqs.
If this work, we will prepare a proper patch
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 63d242164b1a..cb8af0a137f7 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -550,6 +550,7 @@ struct sched_entity {
struct rb_node run_node;
struct list_head group_node;
unsigned int on_rq;
+ unsigned int migrated;
u64 exec_start;
u64 sum_exec_runtime;
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 7a1b1f855b96..36acd9598b40 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1057,6 +1057,7 @@ update_stats_curr_start(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
/*
* We are starting a new run period:
*/
+ se->migrated = 0;
se->exec_start = rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq));
}
@@ -4684,13 +4685,23 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
/*
* Pull vruntime of the entity being placed to the base level of
- * cfs_rq, to prevent boosting it if placed backwards. If the entity
- * slept for a long time, don't even try to compare its vruntime with
- * the base as it may be too far off and the comparison may get
- * inversed due to s64 overflow.
+ * cfs_rq, to prevent boosting it if placed backwards.
+ * However, min_vruntime can advance much faster than real time, with
+ * the exterme being when an entity with the minimal weight always runs
+ * on the cfs_rq. If the new entity slept for long, its vruntime
+ * difference from min_vruntime may overflow s64 and their comparison
+ * may get inversed, so ignore the entity's original vruntime in that
+ * case.
+ * The maximal vruntime speedup is given by the ratio of normal to
+ * minimal weight: NICE_0_LOAD / MIN_SHARES, so cutting off on the
+ * sleep time of 2^63 / NICE_0_LOAD should be safe.
+ * When placing a migrated waking entity, its exec_start has been set
+ * from a different rq. In order to take into account a possible
+ * divergence between new and prev rq's clocks task because of irq and
+ * stolen time, we take an additional margin.
*/
sleep_time = rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->exec_start;
- if ((s64)sleep_time > 60LL * NSEC_PER_SEC)
+ if ((s64)sleep_time > (1ULL << 63) / NICE_0_LOAD / 2)
se->vruntime = vruntime;
else
se->vruntime = max_vruntime(se->vruntime, vruntime);
@@ -7658,7 +7669,7 @@ static void migrate_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int new_cpu)
se->avg.last_update_time = 0;
/* We have migrated, no longer consider this task hot */
- se->exec_start = 0;
+ se->migrated = 1;
update_scan_period(p, new_cpu);
}
@@ -8344,6 +8355,9 @@ static int task_hot(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
if (sysctl_sched_migration_cost == 0)
return 0;
+ if (p->se.migrated)
+ return 0;
+
delta = rq_clock_task(env->src_rq) - p->se.exec_start;
return delta < (s64)sysctl_sched_migration_cost;
>
>
> >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-10 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-06 13:24 Zhang Qiao
2023-03-06 13:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-07 10:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-07 11:05 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-07 13:41 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-08 8:01 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-08 12:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-09 8:37 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-09 9:09 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-09 9:30 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-09 10:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-09 14:23 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-07 2:16 ` kernel test robot
2023-03-07 12:45 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-07 14:06 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-09 9:43 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-08 14:33 ` Chen Yu
2023-03-09 13:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-09 13:34 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-09 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-09 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-09 15:14 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-10 14:29 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2023-03-11 9:57 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-13 14:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-14 11:03 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-14 13:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-14 13:38 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-14 13:39 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-14 15:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-15 9:16 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-15 15:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-13 9:06 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-13 18:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-14 7:41 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-14 12:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-14 13:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-14 17:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-15 7:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-15 8:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-15 10:15 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-15 10:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-15 13:35 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-15 15:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-14 13:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-14 13:37 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-17 16:08 Vincent Guittot
2023-03-18 7:45 ` Zhang Qiao
2023-03-20 12:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-20 13:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-21 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-21 10:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-21 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-21 11:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-21 11:13 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-03-21 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-21 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-21 12:38 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-24 4:05 ` Chen Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZAs+zV0o9ShO7nLT@vingu-book \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rkagan@amazon.de \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=zhangqiao22@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®