On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:11:00PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Added Frederic to Cc: since we are now talking nohz stuff]
>
> [Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: don't try to balance rt_runtime when it is futile] On 14/05/2014 (Wed 08:44) Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:08:35AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > As of the old commit ac086bc22997a2be24fc40fc8d46522fe7e03d11
> > > ("sched: rt-group: smp balancing") the concept of borrowing per
> > > cpu rt_runtime from one core to another was introduced.
> > >
> > > However, this prevents the RT throttling message from ever being
> > > emitted when someone does a common (but mistaken) attempt at
> > > using too much CPU in RT context. Consider the following test:
> > >
> > > echo "main() {for(;;);}" > full_load.c
> > > gcc full_load.c -o full_load
> > > taskset -c 1 ./full_load &
> > > chrt -r -p 80 `pidof full_load`
> > >
> > > When run on x86_64 defconfig, what happens is as follows:
> > >
> > > -task runs on core1 for 95% of an rt_period as documented in
> > > the file Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt
> > >
> > > -at 95%, the code in balance_runtime sees this threshold and
> > > calls do_balance_runtime()
> > >
> > > -do_balance_runtime sees that core 1 is in need, and does this:
> > > ---------------
> > > if (rt_rq->rt_runtime + diff > rt_period)
> > > diff = rt_period - rt_rq->rt_runtime;
> > > iter->rt_runtime -= diff;
> > > rt_rq->rt_runtime += diff;
> > > ---------------
> > > which extends core1's rt_runtime by 5%, making it 100% of rt_period
> > > by stealing 5% from core0 (or possibly some other core).
> > >
> > > However, the next time core1's rt_rq enters sched_rt_runtime_exceeded(),
> > > we hit this near the top of that function:
> > > ---------------
> > > if (runtime >= sched_rt_period(rt_rq))
> > > return 0;
> > > ---------------
> > > and hence we'll _never_ look at/set any of the throttling checks and
> > > messages in sched_rt_runtime_exceeded(). Instead, we will happily
> > > plod along for CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT seconds, at which point
> > > the RCU subsystem will get angry and trigger an NMI in response to
> > > what it rightly sees as a WTF situation.
> >
> > In theory, one way of making RCU OK with an RT usermode CPU hog is to
> > build with Frederic's CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y. This will cause RCU to see
> > CPUs having a single runnable usermode task as idle, preventing the RCU
> > CPU stall warning. This does work well for mainline kernel in the lab.
>
> Agreed; wanting to test that locally for myself meant moving to a more
> modern machine, as the older PentiumD doesn't support NO_HZ_FULL. But
> on the newer box (dual socket six cores in each) I found the stall
> harder to trigger w/o going back to using the threadirqs boot arg as
> used in the earlier lkml post referenced below. (Why? Not sure...)
>
> Once I did that though (boot vanilla linux-next with threadirqs) I
> confirmed what you said; i.e. that we would reliably get a stall with
> the defconfig of NOHZ_IDLE=y but not with NOHZ_FULL=y (and hence also
> RCU_USER_QS=y).
Nice!!! Thank you for checking this out!
> > In practice, not sure how much testing CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y has received
> > for -rt kernels in production environments.
> >
> > But leaving practice aside for the moment...
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > index ea4d500..698aac9 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > @@ -774,6 +774,15 @@ static int balance_runtime(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> > > if (!sched_feat(RT_RUNTIME_SHARE))
> > > return more;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Stealing from another core won't help us at all if
> > > + * we have nothing to migrate over there, or only one
> > > + * task that is running up all the rt_time. In fact it
> > > + * will just inhibit the throttling message in that case.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!rt_rq->rt_nr_migratory || rt_rq->rt_nr_total == 1)
> >
> > How about something like the following to take NO_HZ_FULL into account?
> >
> > + if ((!rt_rq->rt_nr_migratory || rt_rq->rt_nr_total == 1) &&
> > + !tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu))
>
> Yes, I think special casing nohz_full can make sense, but maybe not
> exactly here in balance_runtime? Since the underlying reasoning doesn't
> change on nohz_full ; if only one task is present, or nothing can
> migrate, then the call to do_balance_runtime is largely useless - we'll
> walk possibly all cpus in search of an rt_rq to steal from, and what we
> steal, we can't use - so we've artificially crippled the other rt_rq for
> nothing other than to artifically inflate our rt_runtime and thus allow
> 100% usage.
>
> Given that, perhaps a separate change to sched_rt_runtime_exceeded()
> that works out the CPU from the rt_rq, and returns zero if it is a
> nohz_full cpu? Does that make sense? Then the nohz_full people won't
> get the throttling message even if they go 100%.
Makes sense to me! Then again, I am no scheduler expert.
Thanx, Paul
> Paul.
> --
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > + return more;
> > > +
> > > if (rt_rq->rt_time > rt_rq->rt_runtime) {
> > > raw_spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock);
> > > more = do_balance_runtime(rt_rq);
> > > --
> > > 1.8.2.3
> > >
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
