Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] sched: introduce primitives to account forCFS bandwidth tracking

From: Bharata B Rao
Date: Fri Feb 26 2010 - 06:52:44 EST

Next message: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/2] rcu: fixes for RCU lockdep"
Previous message: Martyn Welch: "Re: Gianfar driver failing on MPC8641D based board"
In reply to: Paul Turner: "Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] sched: introduce primitives to account for CFS bandwidth tracking"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 02:30:44AM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Bharata B Rao
> <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 06:54:57PM -0800, Paul wrote:
> >> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> >> @@ -190,10 +190,28 @@ static inline int rt_bandwidth_enabled(void)
> >> return sysctl_sched_rt_runtime >= 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static void start_rt_bandwidth(struct rt_bandwidth *rt_b)
> >> +static void start_bandwidth_timer(struct hrtimer *period_timer, ktime_t period)
> >> {
> >> - ktime_t now;
> >> + unsigned long delta;
> >> + ktime_t soft, hard, now;
> >> +
> >> + for (;;) {
> >> + if (hrtimer_active(period_timer))
> >> + break;
> >> +
> >> + now = hrtimer_cb_get_time(period_timer);
> >> + hrtimer_forward(period_timer, now, period);
> >> +
> >> + soft = hrtimer_get_softexpires(period_timer);
> >> + hard = hrtimer_get_expires(period_timer);
> >> + delta = ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(hard, soft));
> >> + __hrtimer_start_range_ns(period_timer, soft, delta,
> >> + HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_PINNED, 0);
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >>
> >> +static void start_rt_bandwidth(struct rt_bandwidth *rt_b)
> >> +{
> >> if (!rt_bandwidth_enabled() || rt_b->rt_runtime == RUNTIME_INF)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> @@ -201,22 +219,7 @@ static void start_rt_bandwidth(struct rt_bandwidth *rt_b)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> raw_spin_lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> >> - for (;;) {
> >> - unsigned long delta;
> >> - ktime_t soft, hard;
> >> -
> >> - if (hrtimer_active(&rt_b->rt_period_timer))
> >> - break;
> >> -
> >> - now = hrtimer_cb_get_time(&rt_b->rt_period_timer);
> >> - hrtimer_forward(&rt_b->rt_period_timer, now, rt_b->rt_period);
> >> -
> >> - soft = hrtimer_get_softexpires(&rt_b->rt_period_timer);
> >> - hard = hrtimer_get_expires(&rt_b->rt_period_timer);
> >> - delta = ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(hard, soft));
> >> - __hrtimer_start_range_ns(&rt_b->rt_period_timer, soft, delta,
> >> - HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_PINNED, 0);
> >> - }
> >> + start_bandwidth_timer(&rt_b->rt_period_timer, rt_b->rt_period);
> >> raw_spin_unlock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -241,6 +244,15 @@ struct cfs_rq;
> >>
> >> static LIST_HEAD(task_groups);
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> +struct cfs_bandwidth {
> >> + raw_spinlock_t lock;
> >> + ktime_t period;
> >> + u64 runtime, quota;
> >> + struct hrtimer period_timer;
> >> +};
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> /* task group related information */
> >> struct task_group {
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
> >> @@ -272,6 +284,10 @@ struct task_group {
> >> struct task_group *parent;
> >> struct list_head siblings;
> >> struct list_head children;
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> + struct cfs_bandwidth cfs_bandwidth;
> >> +#endif
> >> };
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_USER_SCHED
> >> @@ -445,9 +461,76 @@ struct cfs_rq {
> >> */
> >> unsigned long rq_weight;
> >> #endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> + u64 quota_assigned, quota_used;
> >> +#endif
> >> #endif
> >> };
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> +static int do_sched_cfs_period_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, int overrun);
> >> +
> >> +static enum hrtimer_restart sched_cfs_period_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
> >> +{
> >> + struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b =
> >> + container_of(timer, struct cfs_bandwidth, period_timer);
> >> + ktime_t now;
> >> + int overrun;
> >> + int idle = 0;
> >> +
> >> + for (;;) {
> >> + now = hrtimer_cb_get_time(timer);
> >> + overrun = hrtimer_forward(timer, now, cfs_b->period);
> >> +
> >> + if (!overrun)
> >> + break;
> >> +
> >> + idle = do_sched_cfs_period_timer(cfs_b, overrun);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return idle ? HRTIMER_NORESTART : HRTIMER_RESTART;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static
> >> +void init_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, u64 quota, u64 period)
> >> +{
> >> + raw_spin_lock_init(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> + cfs_b->quota = cfs_b->runtime = quota;
> >> + cfs_b->period = ns_to_ktime(period);
> >> +
> >> + hrtimer_init(&cfs_b->period_timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> >> + cfs_b->period_timer.function = sched_cfs_period_timer;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static
> >> +void init_cfs_rq_quota(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> >> +{
> >> + cfs_rq->quota_used = 0;
> >> + if (cfs_rq->tg->cfs_bandwidth.quota == RUNTIME_INF)
> >> + cfs_rq->quota_assigned = RUNTIME_INF;
> >> + else
> >> + cfs_rq->quota_assigned = 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void start_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >> +{
> >> + if (cfs_b->quota == RUNTIME_INF)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + if (hrtimer_active(&cfs_b->period_timer))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> + start_bandwidth_timer(&cfs_b->period_timer, cfs_b->period);
> >> + raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void destroy_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >> +{
> >> + hrtimer_cancel(&cfs_b->period_timer);
> >> +}
> >> +#endif
> >
> > May be you could define some of this functions for !CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH case
> > and avoid them calling under #ifdef ? I was given this comment during my
> > initial iterations.
> >
>
> Was it for init or run-time functions? We try to maintain the empty
> def style for most of our run-time functions (e.g. cfs_throttled); for
> init it seems more descriptive (and in keeping with the rest of sched
> init) to ifdef specific initialization.
>
> Regardless, I will definitely give this a pass-over to see what I can clean up.

Even for init functions.

>
> >> +
> >> /* Real-Time classes' related field in a runqueue: */
> >> struct rt_rq {
> >> struct rt_prio_array active;
> >> @@ -1834,6 +1917,14 @@ static inline void __set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu)
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> +/*
> >> + * default period for cfs group bandwidth.
> >> + * default: 0.5s
> >> + */
> >> +static u64 sched_cfs_bandwidth_period = 500000000ULL;
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> #include "sched_stats.h"
> >> #include "sched_idletask.c"
> >> #include "sched_fair.c"
> >> @@ -9422,6 +9513,9 @@ static void init_tg_cfs_entry(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> >> tg->cfs_rq[cpu] = cfs_rq;
> >> init_cfs_rq(cfs_rq, rq);
> >> cfs_rq->tg = tg;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> + init_cfs_rq_quota(cfs_rq);
> >> +#endif
> >> if (add)
> >> list_add(&cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list, &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list);
> >>
> >> @@ -9594,6 +9688,10 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> >> * We achieve this by letting init_task_group's tasks sit
> >> * directly in rq->cfs (i.e init_task_group->se[] = NULL).
> >> */
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> + init_cfs_bandwidth(&init_task_group.cfs_bandwidth,
> >> + RUNTIME_INF, sched_cfs_bandwidth_period);
> >> +#endif
> >> init_tg_cfs_entry(&init_task_group, &rq->cfs, NULL, i, 1, NULL);
> >> #elif defined CONFIG_USER_SCHED
> >> root_task_group.shares = NICE_0_LOAD;
> >> @@ -9851,6 +9949,10 @@ static void free_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
> >> {
> >> int i;
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> + destroy_cfs_bandwidth(&tg->cfs_bandwidth);
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> >> if (tg->cfs_rq)
> >> kfree(tg->cfs_rq[i]);
> >> @@ -9878,7 +9980,10 @@ int alloc_fair_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
> >> goto err;
> >>
> >> tg->shares = NICE_0_LOAD;
> >> -
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> + init_cfs_bandwidth(&tg->cfs_bandwidth, RUNTIME_INF,
> >> + sched_cfs_bandwidth_period);
> >> +#endif
> >> for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> >> rq = cpu_rq(i);
> >>
> >> @@ -10333,7 +10438,7 @@ static int __rt_schedulable(struct task_group *tg, u64 period, u64 runtime)
> >> return walk_tg_tree(tg_schedulable, tg_nop, &data);
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static int tg_set_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
> >> +static int tg_set_rt_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg,
> >> u64 rt_period, u64 rt_runtime)
> >> {
> >> int i, err = 0;
> >> @@ -10372,7 +10477,7 @@ int sched_group_set_rt_runtime(struct task_group *tg, long rt_runtime_us)
> >> if (rt_runtime_us < 0)
> >> rt_runtime = RUNTIME_INF;
> >>
> >> - return tg_set_bandwidth(tg, rt_period, rt_runtime);
> >> + return tg_set_rt_bandwidth(tg, rt_period, rt_runtime);
> >> }
> >>
> >> long sched_group_rt_runtime(struct task_group *tg)
> >> @@ -10397,7 +10502,7 @@ int sched_group_set_rt_period(struct task_group *tg, long rt_period_us)
> >> if (rt_period == 0)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> - return tg_set_bandwidth(tg, rt_period, rt_runtime);
> >> + return tg_set_rt_bandwidth(tg, rt_period, rt_runtime);
> >> }
> >>
> >> long sched_group_rt_period(struct task_group *tg)
> >> @@ -10604,6 +10709,120 @@ static u64 cpu_shares_read_u64(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> >>
> >> return (u64) tg->shares;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
> >> +static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg, u64 period, u64 quota)
> >> +{
> >> + int i;
> >> + static DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex);
> >> +
> >> + if (tg == &init_task_group)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + if (!period)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + mutex_lock(&mutex);
> >
> > What is this mutex for ? So you essentially serializing the bandwidth
> > setting of all groups ? While that iself isn't an issue, just wondering if
> > cfs_bandwidth.lock isn't suffient ?
> >
>
> The idea isn't to synchronize quota updates for all groups, but to
> synchronize it within a single group. Consider the case of 2 parallel
> writes, one setting infinite bandwidth the other setting finite.
> Depending on rq->lock contention it's possible for both values to
> propagate to some of the cpus.
>
> You sit on the bandwidth lock because then there is inversion with
> update_curr, e.g.
>
> cpu1 -> rq->lock held, update_curr -> request bandwidth -> acquire
> cfs_bandwidth.lock
> cpu2 -> tg_set_cfs_bandwidth, hold cfs_bandwidth -> try to acquire cpu1 rq->lock
>
> This mutex could be per-cgroup but users shouldn't be updating fast
> enough to the point where they require it, it also reduces rq->lock
> slamming when users update several cgroups in parallel.

I get it. cfs_bandwidth.lock was suffienct for me since I have per cfs_rq
locks protecting the runtime related fields of cfs_rq. When I started,
I too had a simple scheme like yours where a per-rq lock protected the
runtime related fields of all cfs_rqs under it, but when I added runtime
rebalancing, I found the need for per cfs_rq locks and hence followed
rt code more closely. But I can see that since you don't do runtime rebalancing
you can keep the locking simple with just per rq lock protecting the
runtime related fields of all cfs_rqs under it.

Regards,
Bharata.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/2] rcu: fixes for RCU lockdep"
Previous message: Martyn Welch: "Re: Gianfar driver failing on MPC8641D based board"
In reply to: Paul Turner: "Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] sched: introduce primitives to account for CFS bandwidth tracking"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]