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;
From:   bsegall@google.com
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Chiluk <chiluk+linux@indeed.com>,
        Pqhil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Peter Oskolkov <posk@posk.io>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Brendan Gregg <bgregg@netflix.com>,
        Kyle Anderson <kwa@yelp.com>,
        Gabriel Munos <gmunoz@netflix.com>,
        John Hammond <jhammond@indeed.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] sched/fair: Fix low cpu usage with high throttling by removing expiration of cpu-local slices
References: <1558121424-2914-1-git-send-email-chiluk+linux@indeed.com>
        <1561664970-1555-1-git-send-email-chiluk+linux@indeed.com>
        <1561664970-1555-2-git-send-email-chiluk+linux@indeed.com>
        <xm26lfxhwlxr.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
        <20190711095102.GX3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:46:18 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20190711095102.GX3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (Peter
        Zijlstra's message of "Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:51:02 +0200")
Message-ID: <xm26v9w8jwgl.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> FWIW, good to see progress, still waiting for you guys to agree :-)
>
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 01:15:44PM -0700, bsegall@google.com wrote:
>
>> - Taking up-to-every rq->lock is bad and expensive and 5ms may be too
>>   short a delay for this. I haven't tried microbenchmarks on the cost of
>>   this vs min_cfs_rq_runtime = 0 vs baseline.
>
> Yes, that's tricky, SGI/HPE have definite ideas about that.
>
>> @@ -4781,12 +4790,41 @@ static __always_inline void return_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>   */
>>  static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
>>  {
>> -	u64 runtime = 0, slice = sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice();
>> +	u64 runtime = 0;
>>  	unsigned long flags;
>>  	u64 expires;
>> +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, *temp;
>> +	LIST_HEAD(temp_head);
>> +
>> +	local_irq_save(flags);
>> +
>> +	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> +	cfs_b->slack_started = false;
>> +	list_splice_init(&cfs_b->slack_cfs_rq, &temp_head);
>> +	raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> +
>> +
>> +	/* Gather all left over runtime from all rqs */
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(cfs_rq, temp, &temp_head, slack_list) {
>> +		struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
>> +		struct rq_flags rf;
>> +
>> +		rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>> +
>> +		raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> +		list_del_init(&cfs_rq->slack_list);
>> +		if (!cfs_rq->nr_running && cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0 &&
>> +		    cfs_rq->runtime_expires == cfs_b->runtime_expires) {
>> +			cfs_b->runtime += cfs_rq->runtime_remaining;
>> +			cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
>> +		}
>> +		raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> +
>> +		rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
>> +	}
>
> But worse still, you take possibly every rq->lock without ever
> re-enabling IRQs.
>

Yeah, I'm not sure why I did that, it isn't correctness.