Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:01:08 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Update nohz.next_balance for newly NOHZ-idle CPUs |
| |
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 13:56, Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > Thanks for taking a look. > > On 15/07/21 09:42, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 13:39, Valentin Schneider > > <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote: > >> > >> Consider a system with some NOHZ-idle CPUs, such that > >> > >> nohz.idle_cpus_mask = S > >> nohz.next_balance = T > >> > >> When a new CPU k goes NOHZ idle (nohz_balance_enter_idle()), we end up > >> with: > >> > >> nohz.idle_cpus_mask = S \U {k} > >> nohz.next_balance = T > >> > >> Note that the nohz.next_balance hasn't changed - it won't be updated until > >> a NOHZ balance is triggered. This is problematic if the newly NOHZ idle CPU > >> has an earlier rq.next_balance than the other NOHZ idle CPUs, IOW if: > >> > >> cpu_rq(k).next_balance < nohz.next_balance > >> > >> In such scenarios, the existing nohz.next_balance will prevent any NOHZ > >> balance from happening, which itself will prevent nohz.next_balance from > >> being updated to this new cpu_rq(k).next_balance. Unnecessary load balance > >> delays of over 12ms caused by this were observed on an arm64 RB5 board. > > > > How many CPUs has the arm64 RB5 ? > > That's an 8 CPU DynamIQ system - 4 littles, 3 bigs and one "huge". That > should give us a regular balance_interval of 8ms, but our tests have picked > up CPUs staying idle for >20ms when they really have stuff to pull. In this > case balance_interval increases are involved. > > >> @@ -10351,6 +10354,13 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(struct rq *rq) > >> unlock: > >> rcu_read_unlock(); > >> out: > >> + /* > >> + * Some CPUs have recently gone into NOHZ idle; kick a balance to > >> + * collate the proper next balance interval. > >> + */ > >> + if (!cpumask_subset(nohz.idle_cpus_mask, nohz.last_balance_mask)) > > > > I don't really like having to manipulate a cpumask just to trigger an > > ILB and force the update of nohz.next_balance. Could we use something > > similar to nohz.has_blocked and introduce a nohz.force_update. > > manipulating cpumask will even be more complex if we start to have a > > per node idle_cpus_mask like proposed here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210701055323.2199175-1-npiggin@gmail.com/ > > > > Also > > > > > > Something like below is simpler > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index 44e44c235f1f..91c314f58982 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -10657,6 +10657,9 @@ static void nohz_newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq) > > if (this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost) > > return; > > > > + if (time_before(this_rq->next_balance, READ_ONCE(nohz.next_balance)) > > + WRITE_ONCE(nohz.need_update, 1); > > + > > I think we have to do this unconditionally, as we can observe the old > nohz.next_balance while a NOHZ balance is ongoing (which will update > nohz.next_balance without taking into account this newly idle CPU).
so maybe add this in nohz_balance_enter_idle() after the smp_mb__after_atomic(). Ilb will see the cpu in the idle_cpus_mask so even if nohz.next_balance is updated, it will take into account this newly idle cpu
My goal was to use mechanism similar to what is used of nohz.has_blocked
> > > > /* Don't need to update blocked load of idle CPUs*/ > > if (!READ_ONCE(nohz.has_blocked) || > > time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(nohz.next_blocked))) > > > > > > Then we have to test nohz.need_update in nohz_balancer_kick() > > > > But then, when can we safely clear this new nohz.need_update? We can't do > it unconditionally in nohz_idle_balance() as this could race with a new CPU > going NOHZ idle.
not with the proposal above
> > Perhaps instead we could have a single nohz.needs_update_mask, the CPU is > set in nohz_newidle_balance(), cleared when iterated over in > _nohz_idle_balance(), and nohz_balancer_kick() can trigger an > e.g. NOHZ_UPDATE_KICK if this new cpumask is non-empty. > > >> + flags |= NOHZ_STATS_KICK; > > > > people complain that an update of blocked load is time consuming so we > > should not kick this update unnecessarily. > > We should introduce a new bit like NOHZ_NEXT_KICK that will only go > > through idle cpus and update nohz.next_balance > > > > That sounds reasonable. > > >> + > >> if (flags) > >> kick_ilb(flags); > >> } > >> @@ -10487,6 +10497,7 @@ static bool update_nohz_stats(struct rq *rq) > >> static void _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags, > >> enum cpu_idle_type idle) > >> { > >> + struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(nohz_balance_mask); > >> /* Earliest time when we have to do rebalance again */ > >> unsigned long now = jiffies; > >> unsigned long next_balance = now + 60*HZ; > >> @@ -10518,7 +10529,8 @@ static void _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags, > >> * Start with the next CPU after this_cpu so we will end with this_cpu and let a > >> * chance for other idle cpu to pull load. > >> */ > >> - for_each_cpu_wrap(balance_cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask, this_cpu+1) { > >> + cpumask_copy(cpus, nohz.idle_cpus_mask); > > > > we are not sure to go through all idle cpus and ilb can abort > > > > Right, this is missing something to re-kick an update, but I think we can > get rid of that entirely...
| |