On 15 December 2016 at 22:42, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:38:53PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > The update of the share of a cfs_rq is done when its load_avg is updated
> > but before the group_entity's load_avg has been updated for the past time
> > slot. This generates wrong load_avg accounting which can be significant
> > when small tasks are involved in the scheduling.
> >
> > Let take the example of a task TA that is dequeued of its task group TG1.
> > TA was the only task in TG1 which becomes idle.
> >
> > We have the sequence:
> >
> > - dequeue_entity TA->se
> > - update_load_avg(TA->se)
> > - dequeue_entity_load_avg(TG1->cfs_rq, TA->se)
> > - account_entity_dequeue(TG1->cfs_rq, TA->se)
> > TG1->cfs_rq->load.weight = 0
> > - update_cfs_shares(TG1->cfs_rq)
> > TG1->se->load.weight is updated with the new share of
> > cfs_rq. TG1->se->load.weight = 0.
> > - dequeue_entity TG1->se
> > - update_load_avg(TG1->se) but its weight is now null so the last time
> > slot (up to a tick) will be accounted with its new weight (0 in our case)
> > instead of its real weight. The last time slot is accounted as an idle one
> > whereas it was a running one.
> >
> > If the running time of TA is short enough that no tick happens when it
> > runs, all running time of TG1->se will be accounted as idle time.
> >
> > Instead, we should update the share of a cfs_rq (in fact the weight of its
> > group entity) only after having updated the load_avg of the group_entity.
> >
> > update_cfs_shares() now takes the sched_entity as parameter instead of the
> > cfs_rq and the weight of the group_entity is updated only once its load_avg
> > has been synced with current time.
>
> Urgh, brain hurt, also those names don't help; s/TG1/A/ s/TA/a/
>
> So the problem is that in our for_each_sched_entity(se) loop we end up
> changing the next se before we get there.
>
>
> root
> (cfs_rq)
> \
> (se)
> A
> (cfs_rq)
> \
> (se)
> a
>
>
> Starting at a's se, we update_cfs_shares() on A's cfs_rq, which then
> updates A's se, which is the next se in our iteration and mucks with
> state before we get there.
>
> So you change update_cfs_shares() to go downward while we go upward,
> ensuring we only update things that we've finished with.
yes
>
> Makes sense..
>
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 18d9e75..19092fa 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -2689,15 +2689,18 @@ static void reweight_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se,
> >
> > static inline int throttled_hierarchy(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
> >
> > -static void update_cfs_shares(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > +static void update_cfs_shares(struct sched_entity *se)
> > {
> > struct task_group *tg;
> > - struct sched_entity *se;
> > + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
> > long shares;
>
> please keep them ordered by length.
Ok
>
> >
> > + if (entity_is_task(se))
>
> can be: !cfs_rq, which is the same and we already done that load.
yes. My goal was to keep it more readable about the meaning of the
test and I was expecting that the compiler would be smart enough to
use the same one load for both cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se) and
entity_is_task(se)
I can change with !cfs_rq
>
> > + return;
> > +
> > tg = cfs_rq->tg;
>
> This load isn't needed here yet, can be moved down a bit.
Indeed
>
> > - se = tg->se[cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))];
> > - if (!se || throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
> > +
> > + if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
> > return;
> > #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> > if (likely(se->load.weight == tg->shares))
>
>
> > @@ -3583,9 +3588,9 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > se->vruntime += cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> >
> > update_load_avg(se, UPDATE_TG);
> > + update_cfs_shares(se);
> > enqueue_entity_load_avg(cfs_rq, se);
> > account_entity_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
> > - update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> >
> > if (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP)
> > place_entity(cfs_rq, se, 0);
>
> So here we need to update_cfs_shares() _before_ enqueue_entity, because
> the update_cfs_shares() will affect this se's load, right?
exactly
>
> > @@ -3681,7 +3686,7 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > /* return excess runtime on last dequeue */
> > return_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq);
> >
> > - update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> > + update_cfs_shares(se);
> >
> > /*
> > * Now advance min_vruntime if @se was the entity holding it back,
>
> But this one hurts my brain..
>
> It must be done after dequeue_entity_load_avg() such that we subtract
> the load as was seen until now.
update_cfs_shares(A's se) must be done after update_load_avg(A's se,
UPDATE_TG); so the update od A's se ->load-avg will be updated with
the previous load to update load_avg for the previous time slot.
update_cfs_shares(A's se) could be done before or after
dequeue_entity_load_avg(A's se) because the root's cfs_rq is kept sync
during the reweight of A's se. Nevertheless, i see one advantage of
doing that after: reweight_entity will be faster because A's se->on_rq
will have been cleared in the meantime
>
> Could we please add comments explaining this ordering, because I forever
> need to think about this (both enqueue and dequeue).
OK
>
> > @@ -3864,7 +3869,7 @@ entity_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr, int queued)
> > * Ensure that runnable average is periodically updated.
> > */
> > update_load_avg(curr, UPDATE_TG);
> > - update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> > + update_cfs_shares(curr);
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK
> > /*
> > @@ -4761,7 +4766,7 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > break;
> >
> > update_load_avg(se, UPDATE_TG);
> > - update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> > + update_cfs_shares(se);
> > }
> >
> > if (!se)
> > @@ -4820,7 +4825,7 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > break;
> >
> > update_load_avg(se, UPDATE_TG);
> > - update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> > + update_cfs_shares(se);
> > }
> >
> > if (!se)
>
> This has a distinct pattern to it though; should we think about
> something like: UPDATE_SHARES for update_load_avg() or does that confuse
> things?
IMHO, keeping update_cfs_shares separated from update_load_avg make it
clear about when we update the shares and enable some optimization
like for dequeue_entity
>
> > @@ -9316,7 +9321,7 @@ int sched_group_set_shares(struct task_group *tg, unsigned long shares)
> > /* Possible calls to update_curr() need rq clock */
> > update_rq_clock(rq);
> > for_each_sched_entity(se)
> > - update_cfs_shares(group_cfs_rq(se));
> > + update_cfs_shares(se);
>
> Should we not also catch up with our load before we frob the shares?
yes you're right, an update_load_avg is missing
>
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
> > }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html