Message-ID: <51b603d3-72bf-91c2-1559-b3f85b4865ba@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:41:33 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.1.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: sanitize vruntime of entity being placed
To:     Roman Kagan <rkagan@amazon.de>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
References: <20230127163230.3339408-1-rkagan@amazon.de>
From:   Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230127163230.3339408-1-rkagan@amazon.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2023/1/28 0:32, Roman Kagan 写道:
> From: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>
> 
> When a scheduling entity is placed onto cfs_rq, its vruntime is pulled
> to the base level (around cfs_rq->min_vruntime), so that the entity
> doesn't gain extra boost when placed backwards.
> 
> However, if the entity being placed wasn't executed for a long time, its
> vruntime may get too far behind (e.g. while cfs_rq was executing a
> low-weight hog), which can inverse the vruntime comparison due to s64
> overflow.  This results in the entity being placed with its original
> vruntime way forwards, so that it will effectively never get to the cpu.
> 
> To prevent that, ignore the vruntime of the entity being placed if it
> didn't execute for much longer than the characteristic sheduler time
> scale.
> 


Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>


> [rkagan: formatted, adjusted commit log, comments, cutoff value]
> Co-developed-by: Roman Kagan <rkagan@amazon.de>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Kagan <rkagan@amazon.de>
> ---
> @zhangqiao22, I took the liberty to put you as the author of the patch,
> as this is essentially what you posted for discussion, with minor
> tweaks.  Please stamp with your s-o-b if you're ok with it.
> 
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 0f8736991427..d6cf131ebb0b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4656,6 +4656,7 @@ static void
>  place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
>  {
>  	u64 vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> +	u64 sleep_time;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * The 'current' period is already promised to the current tasks,
> @@ -4685,8 +4686,18 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
>  		vruntime -= thresh;
>  	}
>  
> -	/* ensure we never gain time by being placed backwards. */
> -	se->vruntime = max_vruntime(se->vruntime, vruntime);
> +	/*
> +	 * Pull vruntime of the entity being placed to the base level of
> +	 * cfs_rq, to prevent boosting it if placed backwards.  If the entity
> +	 * slept for a long time, don't even try to compare its vruntime with
> +	 * the base as it may be too far off and the comparison may get
> +	 * inversed due to s64 overflow.
> +	 */
> +	sleep_time = rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->exec_start;
> +	if ((s64)sleep_time > 60 * NSEC_PER_SEC)

In order to avoid overflowing, it'd better be "60LL * NSEC_PER_SEC"

Thanks,
Qiao.


> +		se->vruntime = vruntime;
> +	else
> +		se->vruntime = max_vruntime(se->vruntime, vruntime);
>  }
>  
>  static void check_enqueue_throttle(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
>