On 21 September 2016 at 19:25, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 21/09/16 13:34, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Dietmar,
>>
>> On 21 September 2016 at 12:14, Dietmar Eggemann
>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Vincent,
>>>
>>> On 12/09/16 08:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I guess in the meantime we lost the functionality to remove a cfs_rq from 
>>> the
>>> leaf_cfs_rq list once there are no se's enqueued on it anymore. If e.g. t 
>>> migrates
>>> away from Cpu1, all the cfs_rq's of the task hierarchy (for tg_css_id=2,4,6)
>>> owned by Cpu1 stay in the leaf_cfs_rq list.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we reintegrate it? Following patch goes on top of this patch:
>>
>> I see one problem: Once a cfs_rq has been removed , it will not be
>> periodically updated anymore until the next enqueue. A sleeping task
>> is only attached but not enqueued when it moves into a cfs_rq so its
>> load is added to cfs_rq's load which have to be periodically
>> updated/decayed. So adding a cfs_rq to the list only during an enqueue
>> is not enough in this case.
>
> There was more in the original patch (commit 82958366cfea), the removal of the
> cfs_rq from the list was only done in case the se->avg.runnable_avg_sum had
> decayed to 0. Couldn't we use something similar with se->avg.load_avg instead
> to make sure that these blocked contributions have been decayed before we do 
> the
> removal?

Yes we can use se->avg.load_avg but that's not enough. Once,
se->avg.load_avg becomes null and group cfs_rq->nr_running == 0, we
remove the cfs_rq  from the list and this cfs_rq will not be updated
until a new sched_entity is enqueued. But when you move a sleeping
task between 2 task groups, the load of the task is attached to the
destination cfs_rq but not enqueue so the cfs_rq->avg.load_avg is no
more null but it will not be updated during update_blocked_averages
because the cfs_rq is no more in the list. So waiting for the enqueue
of the sched_entity to add the cfs_rq back in the list is no more
enough. You will have to do that during attach too

>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 4ac1718560e2..3595b0623b37 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6566,6 +6566,8 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
>          * list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() for details.
>          */
>         for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(rq, cfs_rq) {
> +               struct sched_entity *se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu];
> +
>                 /* throttled entities do not contribute to load */
>                 if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
>                         continue;
> @@ -6574,8 +6576,12 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
>                         update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq, 0);
>
>                 /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent */
> -               if (cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu])
> -                       update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0, 0);
> +               if (se) {
> +                       update_load_avg(se, 0, 0);
> +
> +                       if (!se->avg.load_avg && !cfs_rq->nr_running)
> +                               list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> +               }
>         }
>         raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
>  }
>
>
>> Then, only the highest child level of task group will be removed
>> because cfs_rq->nr_running will be > 0 as soon as a child task group
>> is created and enqueued into a task group. Or you should use
>> cfs.h_nr_running instead i don't know all implications
>
> In my tests all cfs_rq's (tg_id=6,4,2) on the source CPU (CPU1) get removed? 
> Do I miss something?

no you don't miss anything. I have replied a bit too quickly on that
point;  the sched_entity of a tsk_group is dequeued when its group
cfs_rq becomes idle  so the parent cfs_rq->nr_running can be null

>
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235292: sched_migrate_task: comm=task0 pid=2210 
> prio=120 orig_cpu=1 dest_cpu=2
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235295: bprint:             enqueue_task_fair: 
> list_add_leaf_cfs_rq: cpu=2 cfs_rq=0xffff80097550d700 tg_id=6 on_list=0
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235298: bprint:             enqueue_task_fair: 
> list_add_leaf_cfs_rq: cpu=2 cfs_rq=0xffff800975903700 tg_id=4 on_list=0
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235300: bprint:             enqueue_task_fair: 
> list_add_leaf_cfs_rq: cpu=2 cfs_rq=0xffff800974e0fe00 tg_id=2 on_list=0
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235302: bprint:             enqueue_task_fair: 
> list_add_leaf_cfs_rq: cpu=2 cfs_rq=0xffff80097fecb6e0 tg_id=1 on_list=1
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235309: bprint:             
> update_blocked_averages: update_blocked_averages: cpu=1 
> cfs_rq=0xffff80097550d800 tg_id=6 on_list=1
>  -> migration/1-16 [001] 67.235312: bprint:             
> update_blocked_averages: list_del_leaf_cfs_rq: cpu=1 
> cfs_rq=0xffff80097550d800 tg_id=6 on_list=1
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235314: bprint:             
> update_blocked_averages: update_blocked_averages: cpu=1 
> cfs_rq=0xffff800975903600 tg_id=4 on_list=1
>  -> migration/1-16 [001] 67.235315: bprint:             
> update_blocked_averages: list_del_leaf_cfs_rq: cpu=1 
> cfs_rq=0xffff800975903600 tg_id=4 on_list=1
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235316: bprint:             
> update_blocked_averages: update_blocked_averages: cpu=1 
> cfs_rq=0xffff800974e0f600 tg_id=2 on_list=1
>  -> migration/1-16 [001] 67.235318: bprint:             
> update_blocked_averages: list_del_leaf_cfs_rq: cpu=1 
> cfs_rq=0xffff800974e0f600 tg_id=2 on_list=1
>     migration/1-16 [001] 67.235319: bprint:             
> update_blocked_averages: update_blocked_averages: cpu=1 
> cfs_rq=0xffff80097feb56e0 tg_id=1 on_list=1
>
> If we don't remove these cfs_rq's, IMHO they stay in the list as long as the 
> tg exists.

Yes i agree. The main drawback is probably that
update_blocked_averages  continue to loop on these cfs_rq during
periodic load balance. We have to compare the cost of adding a branch
of cfs_rqs into the list during the enqueue/attach of a sched_entity
with the cost of the useless loops on these cfs_rq without load during
periodic load balance.

>
> [...]

Reply via email to