Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Simplify leaf_cfs_rq_list maintenance

2021-03-08 Thread Dietmar Eggemann
Hi Michal,

On 25/02/2021 17:27, Michal Koutný wrote:
> leaf_cfs_rq_list should contain cfs_rqs that have runnable entities in
> them.  When we're operating under a throttled hierarchy we always update
> the leaf_cfs_rq_list in order no to break list_add_leaf_cfs_rq invariant
> of adding complete branches.

So this patch replaces in enqueue_entity() the unconditional
list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq) in case cfs->nr_running > 1
(parent had been throttled) 

- if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1 || cfs_bandwidth_used())
  ^^^
with

+ if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1 && !throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
  ^^^

and removes the leaf_cfs_rq_list maintenance code after the
xxx_throttle label in enqueue_task_fair() and unthrottle_cfs_rq
from commit f6783319737f ("sched/fair: Fix insertion in
rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list") and fe61468b2cb ("sched/fair: Fix
enqueue_task_fair warning").

> This caused troubles when an entity became runnable (enqueue_entity)
> under a throttled hierarchy (see commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix
> enqueue_task_fair() warning some more")). While it proved well, this
> new change ignores updating leaf_cfs_rq_list when we're operating under
> the throttled hierarchy and defers the leaf_cfs_rq_list update to the
> point when whole hiearchy is unthrottled (tg_unthrottle_up).

IMHO, f6783319737f gives the explanation why throttled cfs_rq's have to
be added to rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list.

IIRC, fe61468b2cb was fixing a use case in which a cfs-rq with
on_list=0 and nr_running > 1 within the cgroup hierarchy wasn't
added back to rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/15252de5-9a2d-19ae-607a-594ee88d1...@de.ibm.com

In enqueue_task_fair() just before the assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq),
Iterate through the se heriarchy of p=[CPU 2/KVM 2662] in case the
assert will hit:

...
CPU23 
path=/machine.slice/machine-test.slice/machine-qemu\x2d18\x2dtest10.scope/vcpuX 
on_list=1 nr_running=1 throttled=0 p=[CPU 2/KVM 2662]
CPU23 path=/machine.slice/machine-test.slice/machine-qemu\x2d18\x2dtest10.scope 
  on_list=0 nr_running=3 throttled=0 p=[CPU 2/KVM 2662]

  ^ 
CPU23 path=/machine.slice/machine-test.slice
  on_list=1 nr_running=1 throttled=1 p=[CPU 2/KVM 2662]
CPU23 path=/machine.slice   
  on_list=1 nr_running=0 throttled=0 p=[CPU 2/KVM 2662]
CPU23 path=/
  on_list=1 nr_running=1 throttled=0 p=[CPU 2/KVM 2662]
...

> The code is now simpler and leaf_cfs_rq_list contains only cfs_rqs that
> are truly runnable.
> 
> Why is this RFC?
> - Primarily, I'm not sure I interpreted the purpose of leaf_cfs_rq_list
>   right. The removal of throttled cfs_rqs from it would exclude them
>   from __update_blocked_fair() calculation and I can't see past it now.

The leaf_cfs_rq_list should contain all cfs_rqs with
cfs_rq->avg.load/runnable/util_avg != 0 so that in case there are no
runnable entities on them anymore this (blocked) load 
cfs_rq->avg.xxx_avg can be decayed. IMHO. the "leaf_" is misleading
here since it can also contain non-leaf cfs_rqs.

>   If it's wrong assumption, I'd like this to help clarify what the
>   proper definition of leaf_cfs_rq_list would be.
> - Additionally, I didn't check thoroughly for corner cases when
>   se->on_rq => cfs_rq_of(se)->on_list wouldn't hold, so the patch
>   certainly isn't finished.

[...]


[RFC PATCH] sched: Simplify leaf_cfs_rq_list maintenance

2021-02-25 Thread Michal Koutný
leaf_cfs_rq_list should contain cfs_rqs that have runnable entities in
them.  When we're operating under a throttled hierarchy we always update
the leaf_cfs_rq_list in order no to break list_add_leaf_cfs_rq invariant
of adding complete branches.

This caused troubles when an entity became runnable (enqueue_entity)
under a throttled hierarchy (see commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix
enqueue_task_fair() warning some more")). While it proved well, this
new change ignores updating leaf_cfs_rq_list when we're operating under
the throttled hierarchy and defers the leaf_cfs_rq_list update to the
point when whole hiearchy is unthrottled (tg_unthrottle_up).

The code is now simpler and leaf_cfs_rq_list contains only cfs_rqs that
are truly runnable.

Why is this RFC?
- Primarily, I'm not sure I interpreted the purpose of leaf_cfs_rq_list
  right. The removal of throttled cfs_rqs from it would exclude them
  from __update_blocked_fair() calculation and I can't see past it now.
  If it's wrong assumption, I'd like this to help clarify what the
  proper definition of leaf_cfs_rq_list would be.
- Additionally, I didn't check thoroughly for corner cases when
  se->on_rq => cfs_rq_of(se)->on_list wouldn't hold, so the patch
  certainly isn't finished.

Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný 
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c  | 41 ++---
 kernel/sched/sched.h |  4 +---
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 04a3ce20da67..634ba6637824 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4250,10 +4250,11 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct 
sched_entity *se, int flags)
 
/*
 * When bandwidth control is enabled, cfs might have been removed
-* because of a parent been throttled but cfs->nr_running > 1. Try to
-* add it unconditionnally.
+* because of a parent been throttled. We'll add it later (with
+* complete branch up to se->on_rq/cfs_eq->on_list) in
+* tg_unthrottle_up() and unthrottle_cfs_rq().
 */
-   if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1 || cfs_bandwidth_used())
+   if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1 && !throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
 
if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1)
@@ -4859,6 +4860,7 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
for_each_sched_entity(se) {
if (se->on_rq)
break;
+   // XXX: se->on_rq implies cfs_rq_of(se)->on_list (unless 
throttled_hierarchy)
cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
 
@@ -4896,17 +4898,6 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
add_nr_running(rq, task_delta);
 
 unthrottle_throttle:
-   /*
-* The cfs_rq_throttled() breaks in the above iteration can result in
-* incomplete leaf list maintenance, resulting in triggering the
-* assertion below.
-*/
-   for_each_sched_entity(se) {
-   cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
-
-   if (list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq))
-   break;
-   }
 
assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
 
@@ -5518,6 +5509,7 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, 
int flags)
for_each_sched_entity(se) {
if (se->on_rq)
break;
+   // XXX: se->on_rq implies cfs_rq_of(se)->on_list (unless 
throttled_hierarchy)
cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, flags);
 
@@ -5544,13 +5536,6 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, 
int flags)
/* end evaluation on encountering a throttled cfs_rq */
if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
goto enqueue_throttle;
-
-   /*
-* One parent has been throttled and cfs_rq removed from the
-* list. Add it back to not break the leaf list.
-*/
-   if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
-   list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
}
 
/* At this point se is NULL and we are at root level*/
@@ -5574,20 +5559,6 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, 
int flags)
update_overutilized_status(rq);
 
 enqueue_throttle:
-   if (cfs_bandwidth_used()) {
-   /*
-* When bandwidth control is enabled; the cfs_rq_throttled()
-* breaks in the above iteration can result in incomplete
-* leaf list maintenance, resulting in triggering the assertion
-* below.
-*/
-   for_each_sched_entity(se) {
-   cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
-
-   if (list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq))
-   break;
-   }
-   }
 
assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
 
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h