From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Aashish Sharma <shraash@google.com>,
Shin Kawamura <kawasin@google.com>,
Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dl_server: Reset DL server params when rd changes
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:40:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zy3qszfGHO5PUa6W@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3833509d-e0c1-4fc4-874f-5a10fe3f1633@redhat.com>
On 07/11/24 23:40, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/6/24 1:05 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 11/6/24 11:08 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > On 04/11/24 17:41, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 11:54:36AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > I added a printk in __dl_server_attach_root which is called after the
> > > > > dynamic rd is built to transfer bandwidth to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > __dl_server_attach_root came with d741f297bceaf ("sched/fair: Fair
> > > > > server interface"), do you have this change in your backport?
> > > > You nailed it! Our 5.15 backport appears to be slightly older
> > > > and is missing
> > > > this from topology.c as you mentioned. Thanks for clarifying!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Because the rq is not a task,
> > > > dl_add_task_root_domain() did not
> > > > * move the fair server bw to the rd if it already started.
> > > > * Add it now.
> > > > */
> > > > if (rq->fair_server.dl_server)
> > > > __dl_server_attach_root(&rq->fair_server, rq);
> > > >
> > > > > > So if rd changes during boot initialization, the correct
> > > > > > dl_bw has to be
> > > > > > updated AFAICS. Also if cpusets are used, the rd for a
> > > > > > CPU may change.
> > > > > cpusets changes are something that I still need to double check. Will
> > > > > do.
> > > > >
> > > > Sounds good, that would be good to verify.
> > > So, I played a little bit with it and came up with a simple set of ops
> > > that point out an issue (default fedora server install):
> > >
> > > echo Y >/sys/kernel/debug/sched/verbose
> > >
> > > echo +cpuset >/sys/fs/cgroup/cgroup.subtree_control
> > >
> > > echo 0-7 > /sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/cpuset.cpus
> > > echo 6-7 > /sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/cpuset.cpus.exclusive
> > > echo root >/sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/cpuset.cpus.partition
> > >
> > > The domains are rebuilt correctly, but we end up with a null total_bw.
> > >
> > > The conditional call above takes care correctly of adding back dl_server
> > > per-rq bandwidth when we pass from the single domain to the 2 exclusive
> > > ones, but I noticed that we go through partition_sched_domains_locked()
> > > twice for a single write of 'root' and the second one, since it's not
> > > actually destroying/rebuilding anything, is resetting total_bw w/o
> > > addition dl_server contribution back.
> > >
> > > Now, not completely sure why we need to go through partition_sched_
> > > domains_locked() twice, as we have (it also looked like a pattern from
> > > other call paths)
> > >
> > > update_prstate()
> > > -> update_cpumasks_hier()
> > > -> rebuild_sched_domains_locked() <- right at the end
> > > -> update_partition_sd_lb()
> > > -> rebuild_sched_domains_locked() <- right after the above call
> > >
> > > Removing the first call does indeed fix the issue and domains look OK,
> > > but I'm pretty sure I'm missing all sort of details and corner cases.
> > >
> > > Waiman (now Cc-ed), maybe you can help here understanding why the two
> > > back to back calls are needed?
> >
> > Thanks for letting me know about this case.
> >
> > I am aware that rebuild_sched_domains_locked() can be called more than
> > once. I have addressed the hotplug case, but it can happen in some other
> > corner cases as well. The problem with multiple
> > rebuild_sched_domains_locked() calls is the fact that intermediate ones
> > may be called where the internal states may not be consistent. I am
> > going to work on a fix to this issue by making sure that
> > rebuild_sched_domains_locked() will only be called once.
>
> I am working on a set of cpuset patches to eliminate redundant
> rebuild_sched_domains_locked() calls. However, my cpuset test script fails
> after the change due to the presence of test cases where the only CPU in a
> 1-cpu partition is being offlined. So I sent out a sched/deadline patch [1]
> to work around this particular corner case.
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241108042924.520458-1-longman@redhat.com/T/#u
>
> Apparently, the null total_bw bug caused by multiple
> rebuild_sched_domains_locked() calls masks this problem.
>
> Anyway, I should be able to post the cpuset patch series next week after
> further testing. Please review my sched/deadline patch to see if you are OK
> with this minor change.
Thank you! Will take a look.
Best,
Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-08 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-29 22:51 Joel Fernandes (Google)
2024-10-30 14:30 ` Juri Lelli
2024-10-30 19:50 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-11-04 10:54 ` Juri Lelli
2024-11-04 17:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2024-11-06 16:08 ` Juri Lelli
2024-11-06 18:05 ` Waiman Long
2024-11-08 4:40 ` Waiman Long
2024-11-08 10:40 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2024-11-09 3:30 ` Waiman Long
2024-11-09 18:18 ` Waiman Long
2024-11-11 9:37 ` Juri Lelli
2024-11-11 12:24 ` Juri Lelli
2024-10-30 15:54 ` kernel test robot
2024-10-30 17:06 ` kernel test robot
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=Zy3qszfGHO5PUa6W@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb \
--to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kawasin@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shraash@google.com \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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®