Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1608710968-31475-1-git-send-email-ultrachin@163.com>
 <CAKfTPtA9zdU76Q6AyjB8_gqvAm8SP_N0rJuydQdNFbDAKSb2jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1fefea2e.70bf.176f08d9fae.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> <CAKfTPtDWARbx=xqwr47iFkEMVo7=+5_o_gMX+h=gAcXZP341oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <61e22917.538b.176f56231f6.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> <CAKfTPtCSra_kfncR7J_7ona+8MoO0ZX8uTEXvZ7PU7C0pYiM5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <38c1aeee.2d5f.176f9bb0cfb.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> <CAKfTPtAYoBm1se=HAcsyxwZTQ=XW+HcQJsP3maZy6CNgLSfLZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e2f3ac4.2b66.17761bc6eb9.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com> <CAKfTPtBCrzLUnwVv6ExcUgScE9_q2ZZs4SyzV58ASBTY_ZPpyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2a4cd465.257c.1776c3dfb4c.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com>
In-Reply-To: <2a4cd465.257c.1776c3dfb4c.Coremail.ultrachin@163.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:02:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAGHBCkoXtsgAxRJNiRQ+t8NSoBcTpg7fZGproQazgBOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: pull tasks when CPU is about to run SCHED_IDLE tasks
To:     chin <ultrachin@163.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        heddchen@tencent.com,
        =?UTF-8?B?eGlhb2dnY2hlbijpmYjlsI/lhYkp?= <xiaoggchen@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 09:54, chin <ultrachin@163.com> wrote:
>
>
> At 2021-02-04 16:01:57, "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 08:56, chin <ultrachin@163.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 2021-01-13 16:30:14, "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 04:14, chin <ultrachin@163.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> At 2021-01-12 16:18:51, "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 07:59, chin <ultrachin@163.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> At 2021-01-11 19:04:19, "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 09:27, chin <ultrachin@163.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> At 2020-12-23 19:30:26, "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:32, <ultrachin@163.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> From: Chen Xiaoguang <xiaoggchen@tencent.com>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Before a CPU switches from running SCHED_NORMAL task to
> >> >> >> >> >> SCHED_IDLE task, trying to pull SCHED_NORMAL tasks from other
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Could you explain more in detail why you only care about this use case
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >in particular and not the general case?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> We want to run online tasks using SCHED_NORMAL policy and offline tasks
> >> >> >> >> using SCHED_IDLE policy. The online tasks and the offline tasks run in
> >> >> >> >> the same computer in order to use the computer efficiently.
> >> >> >> >> The online tasks are in sleep in most times but should responce soon once
> >> >> >> >> wake up. The offline tasks are in low priority and will run only when no online
> >> >> >> >> tasks.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The online tasks are more important than the offline tasks and are latency
> >> >> >> >> sensitive we should make sure the online tasks preempt the offline tasks
> >> >> >> >> as soon as possilbe while there are online tasks waiting to run.
> >> >> >> >> So in our situation we hope the SCHED_NORMAL to run if has any.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Let's assume we have 2 CPUs,
> >> >> >> >> In CPU1 we got 2 SCHED_NORMAL tasks.
> >> >> >> >> in CPU2 we got 1 SCHED_NORMAL task and 2 SCHED_IDLE tasks.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>              CPU1                      CPU2
> >> >> >> >>         curr       rq1            curr          rq2
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+       +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >> t0    |NORMAL| | |NORMAL|       |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+       +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>                                  NORMAL exits or blocked
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+                | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >> t1    |NORMAL| | |NORMAL|                | |IDLE| |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+                | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>                                  pick_next_task_fair
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+         +----+ | +----+
> >> >> >> >> t2    |NORMAL| | |NORMAL|         |IDLE| | |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+         +----+ | +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>                                  SCHED_IDLE running
> >> >> >> >> t3    +------+ | +------+        +----+  | +----+
> >> >> >> >>       |NORMAL| | |NORMAL|        |IDLE|  | |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+        +----+  | +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>                                  run_rebalance_domains
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ |                +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >> t4    |NORMAL| |                |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ |                +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As we can see
> >> >> >> >> t1: NORMAL task in CPU2 exits or blocked
> >> >> >> >> t2: CPU2 pick_next_task_fair would pick a SCHED_IDLE to run while
> >> >> >> >> another SCHED_NORMAL in rq1 is waiting.
> >> >> >> >> t3: SCHED_IDLE run in CPU2 while a SCHED_NORMAL wait in CPU1.
> >> >> >> >> t4: after a short time, periodic load_balance triggerd and pull
> >> >> >> >> SCHED_NORMAL in rq1 to rq2, and SCHED_NORMAL likely preempts SCHED_IDLE.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In this scenario, SCHED_IDLE is running while SCHED_NORMAL is waiting to run.
> >> >> >> >> The latency of this SCHED_NORMAL will be high which is not acceptble.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Do a load_balance before running the SCHED_IDLE may fix this problem.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> This patch works as below:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>              CPU1                      CPU2
> >> >> >> >>         curr       rq1            curr          rq2
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+       +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >> t0    |NORMAL| | |NORMAL|       |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+       +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>                                  NORMAL exits or blocked
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+                | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >> t1    |NORMAL| | |NORMAL|                | |IDLE| |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ | +------+                | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> t2                            pick_next_task_fair (all se are SCHED_IDLE)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>                                  newidle_balance
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ |                 +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >> t3    |NORMAL| |                 |NORMAL| | |IDLE| |IDLE|
> >> >> >> >>       +------+ |                 +------+ | +----+ +----+
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> t1: NORMAL task in CPU2 exits or blocked
> >> >> >> >> t2: pick_next_task_fair check all se in rbtree are SCHED_IDLE and calls
> >> >> >> >> newidle_balance who tries to pull a SCHED_NORMAL(if has).
> >> >> >> >> t3: pick_next_task_fair would pick a SCHED_NORMAL to run instead of
> >> >> >> >> SCHED_IDLE(likely).
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> CPU by doing load_balance first.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Xiaoguang <xiaoggchen@tencent.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen He <heddchen@tencent.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> ---
> >> >> >> >> >>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 +++++
> >> >> >> >> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> >> >> >> >> index ae7ceba..0a26132 100644
> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -7004,6 +7004,11 @@ struct task_struct *
> >> >> >> >> >>         struct task_struct *p;
> >> >> >> >> >>         int new_tasks;
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> +       if (prev &&
> >> >> >> >> >> +           fair_policy(prev->policy) &&
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Why do you need a prev and fair task  ? You seem to target the special
> >> >> >> >> >case of pick_next_task  but in this case why not only testing rf!=null
> >> >> >> >> > to make sure to not return immediately after jumping to the idle
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >label?
> >> >> >> >> We just want to do load_balance only when CPU switches from SCHED_NORMAL
> >> >> >> >> to SCHED_IDLE.
> >> >> >> >> If not check prev, when the running tasks are all SCHED_IDLE, we would
> >> >> >> >> do newidle_balance everytime in pick_next_task_fair, it makes no sense
> >> >> >> >> and kind of wasting.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I agree that calling newidle_balance every time pick_next_task_fair is
> >> >> >> >called when there are only sched_idle tasks is useless.
> >> >> >> >But you also have to take into account cases where there was another
> >> >> >> >class of task running on the cpu like RT one. In your example above,
> >> >> >> >if you replace the normal task on CPU2 by a RT task, you still want to
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >pick the normal task on CPU1 once RT task goes to sleep.
> >> >> >> Sure, this case should be taken into account,  we should also try to
> >> >> >> pick normal task in this case.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Another point that you will have to consider the impact on
> >> >> >> >rq->idle_stamp because newidle_balance is assumed to be called before
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >going idle which is not the case anymore with your use case
> >> >> >> Yes. rq->idle_stamp should not be changed in this case.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Actually we want to pull a SCHED_NORMAL task (if possible) to run when a cpu is
> >> >> >> about to run SCHED_IDLE task. But currently newidle_balance is not
> >> >> >> designed for SCHED_IDLE  so SCHED_IDLE can also be pulled which
> >> >> >> is useless in our situation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >newidle_balance will pull a sched_idle task only if there is an
> >> >> >imbalance which is the right thing to do IMO to ensure fairness
> >> >> >between sched_idle tasks.  Being a sched_idle task doesn't mean that
> >> >> >we should break the fairness
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So we plan to add a new function sched_idle_balance which only try to
> >> >> >> pull SCHED_NORMAL tasks from the busiest cpu. And we will call
> >> >> >> sched_idle_balance when the previous task is normal or RT and
> >> >> >> hoping we can pull a SCHED_NORMAL task to run.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Do you think it is ok to add a new sched_idle_balance?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't see any reason why the scheduler should not pull a sched_idle
> >> >> >task if there is an imbalance. That will happen anyway during the next
> >> >>
> >> >> >periodic load balance
> >> >> OK. We should not pull the SCHED_IDLE tasks only in load_balance.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you think it make sense to do an extra load_balance when cpu is
> >> >> about to run SCHED_IDLE task (switched from normal/RT)?
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure to get your point here.
> >> >Do you mean if a sched_idle task is picked to become the running task
> >> >whereas there are runnable normal tasks ? This can happen if normal
> >> >tasks are long running tasks. We should not in this case. The only
> >> >case is when the running task, which is not a sched_idle task but a
> >> >normal/rt/deadline one, goes to sleep and there are only sched_idle
> >> >tasks enqueued. In this case and only in this case, we should trigger
> >> >a load_balance to get a chance to pull a waiting normal task from
> >> >another CPU.
> >> >
> >> >This means checking this state in pick_next_task_fair() and in balance_fair()
> >>
> >> We made another change would you please give some comments?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index 04a3ce2..2357301 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -7029,6 +7029,10 @@ struct task_struct *
> >>         struct task_struct *p;
> >>         int new_tasks;
> >>
> >> +       if (sched_idle_rq(rq) && prev && prev->state &&
> >> +           prev->policy != SCHED_IDLE)
> >
>
> >This need a comment to explain what it want to achieve
> Sure we will add a comment when we send version 2.
>
> >
>
> >Why do you need to test prev->state ?
> We only want to do this when a normal task goes to sleep.
> If a long running normal task reaches its time slice then it is the time
> for the SCHED_IDLE task to run.

But sched_idle_rq(rq) will be false in this case because the long
running normal task is still accounted in cfs.h_nr_running


>
> >
> >> +               goto idle;
> >> +
> >>  again:
> >>         if (!sched_fair_runnable(rq))
> >>                 goto idle;
> >> @@ -10571,7 +10575,8 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >>          * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
> >>          * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.
> >>          */
> >> -       this_rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(this_rq);
> >> +       if (!rq->nr_running)
> >> +               this_rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(this_rq);
> >>
> >>         /*
> >>          * Do not pull tasks towards !active CPUs...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> By doing this SCHED_NORMAL tasks waiting on other cpus would get
> >> >> a chance to be pulled to this cpu and run, it is helpful to reduce the latency
> >> >> of SCHED_NORMAL tasks.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Also why not doing that for default case too ? i.e. balance_fair() ?
> >> >> >> >> You are right, if you think this scenario makes sense, we will send a
> >> >> >> >> refined patch soon :-)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> +           sched_idle_cpu(rq->cpu))
> >> >> >> >> >> +               goto idle;
> >> >> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> >> >>  again:
> >> >> >> >> >>         if (!sched_fair_runnable(rq))
> >> >> >> >> >>                 goto idle;
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> 1.8.3.1
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>