Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230524072018.62204-1-yangyicong@huawei.com> <CAKfTPtDOvMqHW7sgw1Ht7pV27W-Up61uO+AfSNkGpoMuOF_gXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0decbc3a-ee1e-e84b-915d-d77b75ec1df6@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <0decbc3a-ee1e-e84b-915d-d77b75ec1df6@huawei.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 12:34:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtB=Ms9Evu-aiBC2hO2ahvxfKZxXsnR+oqCHyU0ituwY4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Don't balance task to its current running CPU
To:     Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com>
Cc:     yangyicong@hisilicon.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
        prime.zeng@huawei.com, wangjie125@huawei.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 10:18, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023/5/25 23:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 09:21, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> >>
> >> We've run into the case that the balancer tries to balance a migration
> >> disabled task and trigger the warning in set_task_cpu() like below:
> >>
> >>  ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >>  WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/core.c:3115 set_task_cpu+0x188/0x240
> >>  Modules linked in: hclgevf xt_CHECKSUM ipt_REJECT nf_reject_ipv4 <...snip>
> >>  CPU: 7 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/7 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G           O       6.1.0-rc4+ #1
> >>  Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 V2/BC82AMDC, BIOS 2280-V2 CS V5.B221.01 12/09/2021
> >>  pstate: 604000c9 (nZCv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> >>  pc : set_task_cpu+0x188/0x240
> >>  lr : load_balance+0x5d0/0xc60
> >>  sp : ffff80000803bc70
> >>  x29: ffff80000803bc70 x28: ffff004089e190e8 x27: ffff004089e19040
> >>  x26: ffff007effcabc38 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: 0000000000000001
> >>  x23: ffff80000803be84 x22: 000000000000000c x21: ffffb093e79e2a78
> >>  x20: 000000000000000c x19: ffff004089e19040 x18: 0000000000000000
> >>  x17: 0000000000001fad x16: 0000000000000030 x15: 0000000000000000
> >>  x14: 0000000000000003 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
> >>  x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000400 x9 : ffffb093e4cee530
> >>  x8 : 00000000fffffffe x7 : 0000000000ce168a x6 : 000000000000013e
> >>  x5 : 00000000ffffffe1 x4 : 0000000000000001 x3 : 0000000000000b2a
> >>  x2 : 0000000000000b2a x1 : ffffb093e6d6c510 x0 : 0000000000000001
> >>  Call trace:
> >>   set_task_cpu+0x188/0x240
> >>   load_balance+0x5d0/0xc60
> >>   rebalance_domains+0x26c/0x380
> >>   _nohz_idle_balance.isra.0+0x1e0/0x370
> >>   run_rebalance_domains+0x6c/0x80
> >>   __do_softirq+0x128/0x3d8
> >>   ____do_softirq+0x18/0x24
> >>   call_on_irq_stack+0x2c/0x38
> >>   do_softirq_own_stack+0x24/0x3c
> >>   __irq_exit_rcu+0xcc/0xf4
> >>   irq_exit_rcu+0x18/0x24
> >>   el1_interrupt+0x4c/0xe4
> >>   el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x2c
> >>   el1h_64_irq+0x74/0x78
> >>   arch_cpu_idle+0x18/0x4c
> >>   default_idle_call+0x58/0x194
> >>   do_idle+0x244/0x2b0
> >>   cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x3c
> >>   secondary_start_kernel+0x14c/0x190
> >>   __secondary_switched+0xb0/0xb4
> >>  ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> >>
> >> Further investigation shows that the warning is superfluous, the migration
> >> disabled task is just going to be migrated to its current running CPU.
> >> This is because that on load balance if the dst_cpu is not allowed by the
> >> task, we'll re-select a new_dst_cpu as a candidate. If no task can be
> >> balanced to dst_cpu we'll try to balance the task to the new_dst_cpu
> >> instead. In this case when the migration disabled task is not on CPU it
> >> only allows to run on its current CPU, load balance will select its
> >> current CPU as new_dst_cpu and later triggers the the warning above.
> >>
> >> This patch tries to solve this by not select the task's current running
> >> CPU as new_dst_cpu in the load balance.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> >> ---
> >> Thanks Valentin for the knowledge of migration disable. Previous discussion can
> >> be found at
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230313065759.39698-1-yangyicong@huawei.com/
> >>
> >>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index 7a1b1f855b96..3c4f3a244c1d 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -8456,7 +8456,8 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct lb_env *env)
> >>
> >>                 /* Prevent to re-select dst_cpu via env's CPUs: */
> >>                 for_each_cpu_and(cpu, env->dst_grpmask, env->cpus) {
> >> -                       if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)) {
> >> +                       if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr) &&
> >> +                           cpu != env->src_cpu) {
> >
> > So I'm a bit surprised that src_cpu can be part of the dst_grpmask and
> > selected as new_dst_cpu. The only reason would be some numa
> > overlapping domains. Is it the case for you ?
> >
>
> It's a 2P 4 NUMA machine, the groups in the top NUMA domains are overlapped, for example for CPU64:
>
> [    3.147038] CPU64 attaching sched-domain(s):
> [    3.147040]  domain-0: span=64-67 level=CLS
> [    3.147043]   groups: 64:{ span=64 cap=1023 }, 65:{ span=65 cap=1023 }, 66:{ span=66 cap=1023 }, 67:{ span=67 }
> [    3.147056]   domain-1: span=64-95 level=MC
> [    3.147059]    groups: 64:{ span=64-67 cap=4093 }, 68:{ span=68-71 cap=4096 }, 72:{ span=72-75 cap=4096 }, 76:{ span=76-79 cap=4096 }, 80:{ span=80-83 cap=4096 }, 84:{ span=84-87 cap=4096 }, 88:{ span=88-91 cap=4096 }, 92:{ span=92-95 cap=4096 }
> [    3.147085]    domain-2: span=64-127 level=NUMA
> [    3.147087]     groups: 64:{ span=64-95 cap=32765 }, 96:{ span=96-127 cap=32767 }
> [    3.147095]     domain-3: span=0-31,64-127 level=NUMA
> [    3.147098]      groups: 64:{ span=64-127 cap=65532 }, 0:{ span=0-31 cap=32767 }
> [    3.147106]      domain-4: span=0-127 level=NUMA
> [    3.147109]       groups: 64:{ span=0-31,64-127 mask=64-95 cap=98300 }, 32:{ span=0-63 mask=32-63 cap=65531 }
>

Thanks for confirming this.

So I wonder if a better solution would be to make env->dst_grpmask =
group_balance_cpu(sd->groups) instead of
sched_group_span(sd->groups),. The behavior remains the same for non
overlapping groups because group_balance_cpu(sd->groups) ==
sched_group_span(sd->groups) in this case and for overlapping group,
we will try to find a dst_cpu that is not contained in src/busiest
group and the load balance will effectively pull load from the
busiest_group


> >>                                 env->flags |= LBF_DST_PINNED;
> >>                                 env->new_dst_cpu = cpu;
> >>                                 break;
> >> --
> >> 2.24.0
> >>
> > .
> >