A previous patch improved cross-cpu vruntime comparison opertations in
pick_next_task(). Improve it further for tasks in CGroups.
In particular, for cross-CPU comparisons, we were previously going to
the root-level se(s) for both the task being compared. That was strange.
This patch instead finds the se(s) for both tasks that have the same
parent (which may be different from root).
A note about the min_vruntime snapshot and force idling:
Abbreviations: fi: force-idled now? ; fib: force-idled before?
During selection:
When we're not fi, we need to update snapshot.
when we're fi and we were not fi, we must update snapshot.
When we're fi and we were already fi, we must not update snapshot.
Which gives:
fib fi update?
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
So the min_vruntime snapshot needs to be updated when: !(fib && fi).
Also, the cfs_prio_less() function needs to be aware of whether the core
is in force idle or not, since it will be use this information to know
whether to advance a cfs_rq's min_vruntime_fi in the hierarchy. So pass
this information along via pick_task() -> prio_less().
Reviewed-by: Vineeth Pillai <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++----------------
kernel/sched/fair.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
kernel/sched/sched.h | 7 +++-
3 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 3b373b592680..20125431af87 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static inline int __task_prio(struct task_struct *p)
*/
/* real prio, less is less */
-static inline bool prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
+static inline bool prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b, bool in_fi)
{
int pa = __task_prio(a), pb = __task_prio(b);
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static inline bool prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
return !dl_time_before(a->dl.deadline, b->dl.deadline);
if (pa == MAX_RT_PRIO + MAX_NICE) /* fair */
- return cfs_prio_less(a, b);
+ return cfs_prio_less(a, b, in_fi);
return false;
}
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static inline bool __sched_core_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *
return false;
/* flip prio, so high prio is leftmost */
- if (prio_less(b, a))
+ if (prio_less(b, a, task_rq(a)->core->core_forceidle))
return true;
return false;
@@ -5101,7 +5101,7 @@ static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
* - Else returns idle_task.
*/
static struct task_struct *
-pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max)
+pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max, bool in_fi)
{
struct task_struct *class_pick, *cookie_pick;
unsigned long cookie = rq->core->core_cookie;
@@ -5116,7 +5116,7 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *ma
* higher priority than max.
*/
if (max && class_pick->core_cookie &&
- prio_less(class_pick, max))
+ prio_less(class_pick, max, in_fi))
return idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq);
return class_pick;
@@ -5135,13 +5135,15 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *ma
* the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with
* the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint.
*/
- if (prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) &&
- (!max || prio_less(max, class_pick)))
+ if (prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick, in_fi) &&
+ (!max || prio_less(max, class_pick, in_fi)))
return class_pick;
return cookie_pick;
}
+extern void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool in_fi);
+
static struct task_struct *
pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
{
@@ -5230,9 +5232,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
if (!next->core_cookie) {
rq->core_pick = NULL;
+ /*
+ * For robustness, update the min_vruntime_fi for
+ * unconstrained picks as well.
+ */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(fi_before);
+ task_vruntime_update(rq, next, false);
goto done;
}
- need_sync = true;
}
for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
@@ -5244,14 +5251,6 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
update_rq_clock(rq_i);
}
- /* Reset the snapshot if core is no longer in force-idle. */
- if (!fi_before) {
- for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
- struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
- rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime_fi = rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime;
- }
- }
-
/*
* Try and select tasks for each sibling in decending sched_class
* order.
@@ -5271,7 +5270,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
* highest priority task already selected for this
* core.
*/
- p = pick_task(rq_i, class, max);
+ p = pick_task(rq_i, class, max, fi_before);
if (!p)
continue;
@@ -5279,6 +5278,11 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
occ++;
rq_i->core_pick = p;
+ if (rq_i->idle == p && rq_i->nr_running) {
+ rq->core->core_forceidle = true;
+ if (!fi_before)
+ rq->core->core_forceidle_seq++;
+ }
/*
* If this new candidate is of higher priority than the
@@ -5297,6 +5301,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
max = p;
if (old_max) {
+ rq->core->core_forceidle = false;
for_each_cpu(j, smt_mask) {
if (j == i)
continue;
@@ -5338,10 +5343,16 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
if (!rq_i->core_pick)
continue;
- if (is_task_rq_idle(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running &&
- !rq_i->core->core_forceidle) {
- rq_i->core->core_forceidle = true;
- }
+ /*
+ * Update for new !FI->FI transitions, or if continuing to be in !FI:
+ * fi_before fi update?
+ * 0 0 1
+ * 0 1 1
+ * 1 0 1
+ * 1 1 0
+ */
+ if (!(fi_before && rq->core->core_forceidle))
+ task_vruntime_update(rq_i, rq_i->core_pick, rq->core->core_forceidle);
rq_i->core_pick->core_occupation = occ;
@@ -5361,14 +5372,6 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
resched_curr(rq_i);
}
- /* Snapshot if core is in force-idle. */
- if (!fi_before && rq->core->core_forceidle) {
- for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
- struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
- rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime_fi = rq_i->cfs.min_vruntime;
- }
- }
-
done:
set_next_task(rq, next);
return next;
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ceb3906c9a8a..a89c7c917cc6 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -10781,43 +10781,81 @@ static inline void task_tick_core(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
resched_curr(rq);
}
-bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
+/*
+ * se_fi_update - Update the cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi in a CFS hierarchy if needed.
+ */
+static void se_fi_update(struct sched_entity *se, unsigned int fi_seq, bool forceidle)
{
- bool samecpu = task_cpu(a) == task_cpu(b);
+ bool root = true;
+ long old, new;
+
+ for_each_sched_entity(se) {
+ struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
+
+ if (forceidle) {
+ if (cfs_rq->forceidle_seq == fi_seq)
+ break;
+ cfs_rq->forceidle_seq = fi_seq;
+ }
+
+ cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
+ }
+}
+
+void task_vruntime_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool in_fi)
+{
+ struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
+
+ if (p->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
+ return;
+
+ se_fi_update(se, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, in_fi);
+}
+
+bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b, bool in_fi)
+{
+ struct rq *rq = task_rq(a);
struct sched_entity *sea = &a->se;
struct sched_entity *seb = &b->se;
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqa;
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rqb;
s64 delta;
- if (samecpu) {
- /* vruntime is per cfs_rq */
- while (!is_same_group(sea, seb)) {
- int sea_depth = sea->depth;
- int seb_depth = seb->depth;
- if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
- sea = parent_entity(sea);
- if (sea_depth <= seb_depth)
- seb = parent_entity(seb);
- }
+ SCHED_WARN_ON(task_rq(b)->core != rq->core);
- delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime);
- goto out;
+#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
+ /*
+ * Find an se in the hierarchy for tasks a and b, such that the se's
+ * are immediate siblings.
+ */
+ while (sea->cfs_rq->tg != seb->cfs_rq->tg) {
+ int sea_depth = sea->depth;
+ int seb_depth = seb->depth;
+
+ if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
+ sea = parent_entity(sea);
+ if (sea_depth <= seb_depth)
+ seb = parent_entity(seb);
}
- /* crosscpu: compare root level se's vruntime to decide priority */
- while (sea->parent)
- sea = sea->parent;
- while (seb->parent)
- seb = seb->parent;
+ se_fi_update(sea, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, in_fi);
+ se_fi_update(seb, rq->core->core_forceidle_seq, in_fi);
cfs_rqa = sea->cfs_rq;
cfs_rqb = seb->cfs_rq;
+#else
+ cfs_rqa = &task_rq(a)->cfs;
+ cfs_rqb = &task_rq(b)->cfs;
+#endif
- /* normalize vruntime WRT their rq's base */
+ /*
+ * Find delta after normalizing se's vruntime with its cfs_rq's
+ * min_vruntime_fi, which would have been updated in prior calls
+ * to se_fi_update().
+ */
delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime) +
(s64)(cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi);
-out:
+
return delta > 0;
}
#else
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index de553d39aa40..5c258ab64052 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -518,8 +518,10 @@ struct cfs_rq {
u64 exec_clock;
u64 min_vruntime;
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
+ unsigned int forceidle_seq;
u64 min_vruntime_fi;
#endif
+
#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
u64 min_vruntime_copy;
#endif
@@ -1078,6 +1080,7 @@ struct rq {
unsigned int core_pick_seq;
unsigned long core_cookie;
unsigned char core_forceidle;
+ unsigned int core_forceidle_seq;
#endif
};
@@ -1133,7 +1136,7 @@ static inline raw_spinlock_t *rq_lockp(struct rq *rq)
return &rq->__lock;
}
-bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b);
+bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b, bool fi);
/*
* Helper to check if the CPU's core cookie matches with the task's cookie
@@ -1166,6 +1169,8 @@ static inline bool sched_core_cookie_match(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
extern void queue_core_balance(struct rq *rq);
+bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b, bool fi);
+
#else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_CORE */
static inline bool sched_core_enabled(struct rq *rq)
--
2.29.2.299.gdc1121823c-goog
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:45PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> +static void se_fi_update(struct sched_entity *se, unsigned int fi_seq, bool forceidle)
> {
> - bool samecpu = task_cpu(a) == task_cpu(b);
> + bool root = true;
> + long old, new;
My compiler was not impressed by all those variable definitions.
> +
> + for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> +
> + if (forceidle) {
> + if (cfs_rq->forceidle_seq == fi_seq)
> + break;
> + cfs_rq->forceidle_seq = fi_seq;
> + }
> +
> + cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> + }
> +}
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:27:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:45PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > A previous patch improved cross-cpu vruntime comparison opertations in
> > pick_next_task(). Improve it further for tasks in CGroups.
> >
> > In particular, for cross-CPU comparisons, we were previously going to
> > the root-level se(s) for both the task being compared. That was strange.
> > This patch instead finds the se(s) for both tasks that have the same
> > parent (which may be different from root).
> >
> > A note about the min_vruntime snapshot and force idling:
> > Abbreviations: fi: force-idled now? ; fib: force-idled before?
> > During selection:
> > When we're not fi, we need to update snapshot.
> > when we're fi and we were not fi, we must update snapshot.
> > When we're fi and we were already fi, we must not update snapshot.
> >
> > Which gives:
> > fib fi update?
> > 0 0 1
> > 0 1 1
> > 1 0 1
> > 1 1 0
> > So the min_vruntime snapshot needs to be updated when: !(fib && fi).
> >
> > Also, the cfs_prio_less() function needs to be aware of whether the core
> > is in force idle or not, since it will be use this information to know
> > whether to advance a cfs_rq's min_vruntime_fi in the hierarchy. So pass
> > this information along via pick_task() -> prio_less().
>
> Hurmph.. so I'm tempted to smash a bunch of patches together.
>
> 2 <- 3 (already done - bisection crashes are daft)
> 6 <- 11
> 7 <- {10, 12}
> 9 <- 15
>
> I'm thinking that would result in an easier to read series, or do we
> want to preserve this history?
>
> (fwiw, I pulled 15 before 13,14, as I think that makes more sense
> anyway).
Either way would be Ok with me, I would suggest retaining the history though
so that the details in the changelog are preserved of the issues we faced,
and in the future we can refer back to them.
thanks,
- Joel
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:45PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> A previous patch improved cross-cpu vruntime comparison opertations in
> pick_next_task(). Improve it further for tasks in CGroups.
>
> In particular, for cross-CPU comparisons, we were previously going to
> the root-level se(s) for both the task being compared. That was strange.
> This patch instead finds the se(s) for both tasks that have the same
> parent (which may be different from root).
>
> A note about the min_vruntime snapshot and force idling:
> Abbreviations: fi: force-idled now? ; fib: force-idled before?
> During selection:
> When we're not fi, we need to update snapshot.
> when we're fi and we were not fi, we must update snapshot.
> When we're fi and we were already fi, we must not update snapshot.
>
> Which gives:
> fib fi update?
> 0 0 1
> 0 1 1
> 1 0 1
> 1 1 0
> So the min_vruntime snapshot needs to be updated when: !(fib && fi).
>
> Also, the cfs_prio_less() function needs to be aware of whether the core
> is in force idle or not, since it will be use this information to know
> whether to advance a cfs_rq's min_vruntime_fi in the hierarchy. So pass
> this information along via pick_task() -> prio_less().
Hurmph.. so I'm tempted to smash a bunch of patches together.
2 <- 3 (already done - bisection crashes are daft)
6 <- 11
7 <- {10, 12}
9 <- 15
I'm thinking that would result in an easier to read series, or do we
want to preserve this history?
(fwiw, I pulled 15 before 13,14, as I think that makes more sense
anyway).
Hmm?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:07:44PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Either way would be Ok with me, I would suggest retaining the history though
> so that the details in the changelog are preserved of the issues we faced,
> and in the future we can refer back to them.
Well, in part that's what we have mail archives for. My main concern is
that there's a lot of back and forth in the patches as presented and
that makes review really awkward.
I've done some of the patch munging proposed, I might do more if I find
the motivation.
But first I should probably go read all that API crud you did on top,
I've not read that before...