On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:49:25AM -0700 bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I've Cc:-ed a handful of gents who worked on CFS bandwidth details to widen the discussion.
> > Patch quoted below.
> >
> > Looks like a real bug that needs to be fixed - and at first sight the quota of 1000 looks very
> > low - could we improve the arithmetics perhaps?
> >
> > A low quota of 1000 is used because there's many VMs or containers provisioned on the system
> > that is triggering the bug, right?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
> >
> > * Phil Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Phil Auld" <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> sched/fair: Avoid throttle_list starvation with low cfs quota
> >>
> >> With a very low cpu.cfs_quota_us setting, such as the minimum of 1000,
> >> distribute_cfs_runtime may not empty the throttled_list before it runs
> >> out of runtime to distribute. In that case, due to the change from
> >> c06f04c7048 to put throttled entries at the head of the list, later entries
> >> on the list will starve. Essentially, the same X processes will get pulled
> >> off the list, given CPU time and then, when expired, get put back on the
> >> head of the list where distribute_cfs_runtime will give runtime to the same
> >> set of processes leaving the rest.
> >>
> >> Fix the issue by setting a bit in struct cfs_bandwidth when
> >> distribute_cfs_runtime is running, so that the code in throttle_cfs_rq can
> >> decide to put the throttled entry on the tail or the head of the list. The
> >> bit is set/cleared by the callers of distribute_cfs_runtime while they hold
> >> cfs_bandwidth->lock.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Fixes: c06f04c70489 ("sched: Fix potential near-infinite distribute_cfs_runtime() loop")
> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Reviewed-by: Ben Segall <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> In theory this does mean the unfairness could still happen if distribute is still
> running, but while a tiny quota makes it more likely, the fact that
> we're not getting through much of the list makes it not really a worry.
> If you wanted to be even more careful there could be some generation
> counter or something, but it doesn't seem necessary.
>
Thanks for the review. Yeah, I thought about a few other approaches, not explicitly
what you suggested, but they all complicated things. This one seemed the closest to
"obviously correct".
Cheers,
Phil
>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> This is easy to reproduce with a handful of cpu consumers. I use crash on
> >> the live system. In some cases you can simply look at the throttled list and
> >> see the later entries are not changing:
> >>
> >> crash> list cfs_rq.throttled_list -H 0xffff90b54f6ade40 -s cfs_rq.runtime_remaining | paste - - | awk '{print $1" "$4}' | pr -t -n3
> >> 1 ffff90b56cb2d200 -976050
> >> 2 ffff90b56cb2cc00 -484925
> >> 3 ffff90b56cb2bc00 -658814
> >> 4 ffff90b56cb2ba00 -275365
> >> 5 ffff90b166a45600 -135138
> >> 6 ffff90b56cb2da00 -282505
> >> 7 ffff90b56cb2e000 -148065
> >> 8 ffff90b56cb2fa00 -872591
> >> 9 ffff90b56cb2c000 -84687
> >> 10 ffff90b56cb2f000 -87237
> >> 11 ffff90b166a40a00 -164582
> >> crash> list cfs_rq.throttled_list -H 0xffff90b54f6ade40 -s cfs_rq.runtime_remaining | paste - - | awk '{print $1" "$4}' | pr -t -n3
> >> 1 ffff90b56cb2d200 -994147
> >> 2 ffff90b56cb2cc00 -306051
> >> 3 ffff90b56cb2bc00 -961321
> >> 4 ffff90b56cb2ba00 -24490
> >> 5 ffff90b166a45600 -135138
> >> 6 ffff90b56cb2da00 -282505
> >> 7 ffff90b56cb2e000 -148065
> >> 8 ffff90b56cb2fa00 -872591
> >> 9 ffff90b56cb2c000 -84687
> >> 10 ffff90b56cb2f000 -87237
> >> 11 ffff90b166a40a00 -164582
> >>
> >> Sometimes it is easier to see by finding a process getting starved and looking
> >> at the sched_info:
> >>
> >> crash> task ffff8eb765994500 sched_info
> >> PID: 7800 TASK: ffff8eb765994500 CPU: 16 COMMAND: "cputest"
> >> sched_info = {
> >> pcount = 8,
> >> run_delay = 697094208,
> >> last_arrival = 240260125039,
> >> last_queued = 240260327513
> >> },
> >> crash> task ffff8eb765994500 sched_info
> >> PID: 7800 TASK: ffff8eb765994500 CPU: 16 COMMAND: "cputest"
> >> sched_info = {
> >> pcount = 8,
> >> run_delay = 697094208,
> >> last_arrival = 240260125039,
> >> last_queued = 240260327513
> >> },
> >>
> >>
> >> fair.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
> >> sched.h | 2 ++
> >> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> index 7fc4a371bdd2..f88e00705b55 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> >> @@ -4476,9 +4476,13 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Add to the _head_ of the list, so that an already-started
> >> - * distribute_cfs_runtime will not see us
> >> + * distribute_cfs_runtime will not see us. If disribute_cfs_runtime is
> >> + * not running add to the tail so that later runqueues don't get starved.
> >> */
> >> - list_add_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> >> + if (cfs_b->distribute_running)
> >> + list_add_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> >> + else
> >> + list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * If we're the first throttled task, make sure the bandwidth
> >> @@ -4622,14 +4626,16 @@ static int do_sched_cfs_period_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, int overrun)
> >> * in us over-using our runtime if it is all used during this loop, but
> >> * only by limited amounts in that extreme case.
> >> */
> >> - while (throttled && cfs_b->runtime > 0) {
> >> + while (throttled && cfs_b->runtime > 0 && !cfs_b->distribute_running) {
> >> runtime = cfs_b->runtime;
> >> + cfs_b->distribute_running = 1;
> >> raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> /* we can't nest cfs_b->lock while distributing bandwidth */
> >> runtime = distribute_cfs_runtime(cfs_b, runtime,
> >> runtime_expires);
> >> raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >>
> >> + cfs_b->distribute_running = 0;
> >> throttled = !list_empty(&cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> >>
> >> cfs_b->runtime -= min(runtime, cfs_b->runtime);
> >> @@ -4740,6 +4746,11 @@ static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >>
> >> /* confirm we're still not at a refresh boundary */
> >> raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> + if (cfs_b->distribute_running) {
> >> + raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> if (runtime_refresh_within(cfs_b, min_bandwidth_expiration)) {
> >> raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> return;
> >> @@ -4749,6 +4760,9 @@ static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >> runtime = cfs_b->runtime;
> >>
> >> expires = cfs_b->runtime_expires;
> >> + if (runtime)
> >> + cfs_b->distribute_running = 1;
> >> +
> >> raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >>
> >> if (!runtime)
> >> @@ -4759,6 +4773,7 @@ static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >> raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> if (expires == cfs_b->runtime_expires)
> >> cfs_b->runtime -= min(runtime, cfs_b->runtime);
> >> + cfs_b->distribute_running = 0;
> >> raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -4867,6 +4882,7 @@ void init_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >> cfs_b->period_timer.function = sched_cfs_period_timer;
> >> hrtimer_init(&cfs_b->slack_timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> >> cfs_b->slack_timer.function = sched_cfs_slack_timer;
> >> + cfs_b->distribute_running = 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> static void init_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> >> index 455fa330de04..9683f458aec7 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> >> @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth {
> >> int nr_periods;
> >> int nr_throttled;
> >> u64 throttled_time;
> >> +
> >> + bool distribute_running;
> >> #endif
> >> };
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
--
