Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:17:07 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Limit sched_cfs_period_timer loop to avoid
 hard lockup
Message-ID: <20190315161707.GG27131@pauld.bos.csb>
References: <20190313150826.16862-1-pauld@redhat.com>
 <20190315101150.GV5996@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190315153042.GF27131@pauld.bos.csb>
 <20190315160347.GZ5996@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190315160347.GZ5996@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 05:03:47PM +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:30:42AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> 
> > In my defense here, all the fair.c imbalance pct code also uses 100 :)
> 
> Yes, I know, I hate on that too ;-) Just never got around to fixing
> that.
> 
> 
> > with the below:
> > 
> > [  117.235804] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 2492, cfs_quota_us = 143554)
> > [  117.346807] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 2862, cfs_quota_us = 164863)
> > [  117.470569] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 3286, cfs_quota_us = 189335)
> > [  117.574883] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 3774, cfs_quota_us = 217439)
> > [  117.652907] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 4335, cfs_quota_us = 249716)
> > [  118.090535] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 4978, cfs_quota_us = 286783)
> > [  122.098009] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 5717, cfs_quota_us = 329352)
> > [  126.255209] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 6566, cfs_quota_us = 378240)
> > [  126.358060] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 7540, cfs_quota_us = 434385)
> > [  126.538358] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 8660, cfs_quota_us = 498865)
> > [  126.614304] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 9945, cfs_quota_us = 572915)
> > [  126.817085] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 11422, cfs_quota_us = 657957)
> > [  127.352038] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 13117, cfs_quota_us = 755623)
> > [  127.598043] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 15064, cfs_quota_us = 867785)
> > 
> > 
> > Plus on repeats I see an occasional 
> > 
> > [  152.803384] sched_cfs_period_timer: 9 callbacks suppressed
> 
> That should be fine, right? It's a fallback for an edge case and
> shouldn't trigger too often anyway.

It doesn't hit the NMI, just takes a bit longer to get out. It is a little messier 
output, but as you say, it's a fallback. If you're okay with it do you want to 
just use your patch? 

Otherwise, I'm happy to do a fixup v2.

> 
> >> I'll rework the maths in the averaged version and post v2 if that makes sense.
> > 
> > It may have the extra timer fetch, although maybe I could rework it so that it used the 
> > nsstart time the first time and did not need to do it twice in a row. I had originally
> > reverted the hrtimer_forward_now() to hrtimer_forward() but put that back. 
> 
> Sure; but remember, simpler is often better, esp. for code that
> typically 'never' runs.
> 
> > Also, fwiw, this was reported earlier by Anton Blanchard in https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/3/1047
> 
> Bah, yes, I sometimes loose track of things :/


No worries. I just meant that to show I was not the only one with these low settings, 
and to give credit, or whatever :)


Cheers,
Phil

--