Re: [patch 09/15] sched: unthrottle cfs_rq(s) who ran out of quotaat period refresh

[Hidetoshi Seto]

Some comments...

(2011/05/03 18:28), Paul Turner wrote:
> At the start of a new period there are several actions we must refresh the
> global bandwidth pool as well as unthrottle any cfs_rq entities who previously
> ran out of bandwidth (as quota permits).
> 
> Unthrottled entities have the cfs_rq->throttled flag cleared and are re-enqueued
> into the cfs entity hierarchy.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Turner <pjt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/sched.c      |    3 +
>  kernel/sched_fair.c |  105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: tip/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ tip/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -9294,6 +9294,9 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct t
>  		cfs_rq->runtime_enabled = quota != RUNTIME_INF;
>  		cfs_rq->runtime_remaining = 0;
>  		cfs_rq->runtime_expires = runtime_expires;
> +
> +		if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> +			unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
>  	}
>  out_unlock:
> Index: tip/kernel/sched_fair.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ tip/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -1456,10 +1456,88 @@ static void check_enqueue_throttle(struc
>  		throttle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
>  }
>  
> +static void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
> +	struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b = tg_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_rq->tg);
> +	struct sched_entity *se;
> +	int enqueue = 1;
> +	long task_delta;
> +
> +	se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))];
> +
> +	cfs_rq->throttled = 0;
> +	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +	list_del_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list);
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +
> +	if (!cfs_rq->load.weight)
> +		return;
> +
> +	task_delta = cfs_rq->h_nr_running;
> +	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> +		if (se->on_rq)
> +			enqueue = 0;
> +
> +		cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> +		if (enqueue)
> +			enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
> +		cfs_rq->h_nr_running += task_delta;
> +
> +		if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!se)
> +		rq->nr_running += task_delta;
> +
> +	/* determine whether we need to wake up potentially idle cpu */
> +	if (rq->curr == rq->idle && rq->cfs.nr_running)
> +		resched_task(rq->curr);
> +}
> +
> +static u64 distribute_cfs_runtime(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b,
> +		u64 remaining, u64 expires)
> +{
> +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
> +	u64 runtime = remaining;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(cfs_rq, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq,
> +				throttled_list) {
> +		struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
> +
> +		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +		if (!cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> +			goto next;
> +
> +		runtime = -cfs_rq->runtime_remaining + 1;

It will helpful if a comment can explain why negative and 1.

> +		if (runtime > remaining)
> +			runtime = remaining;
> +		remaining -= runtime;
> +
> +		cfs_rq->runtime_remaining += runtime;
> +		cfs_rq->runtime_expires = expires;
> +
> +		/* we check whether we're throttled above */
> +		if (cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0)
> +			unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> +
> +next:
> +		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> +
> +		if (!remaining)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	return remaining;
> +}
> +
>  static int do_sched_cfs_period_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, int overrun)
>  {
>  	u64 quota, runtime = 0, runtime_expires;
> -	int idle = 0;
> +	int idle = 0, throttled = 0;
>  
>  	runtime_expires = sched_clock_cpu(smp_processor_id());
>  
> @@ -1469,6 +1547,7 @@ static int do_sched_cfs_period_timer(str
>  	if (quota != RUNTIME_INF) {
>  		runtime = quota;
>  		runtime_expires += ktime_to_ns(cfs_b->period);
> +		throttled = !list_empty(&cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
>  
>  		cfs_b->runtime = runtime;
>  		cfs_b->runtime_expires = runtime_expires;
> @@ -1477,6 +1556,30 @@ static int do_sched_cfs_period_timer(str
>  	}
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
>  
> +	if (!throttled || quota == RUNTIME_INF)
> +		goto out;
> +	idle = 0;
> +
> +retry:
> +	runtime = distribute_cfs_runtime(cfs_b, runtime, runtime_expires);
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +	/* new new bandwidth may have been set */

Typo? new, newer, newest...?

> +	if (unlikely(runtime_expires != cfs_b->runtime_expires))
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	/*
> +	 * make sure no-one was throttled while we were handing out the new
> +	 * runtime.
> +	 */
> +	if (runtime > 0 && !list_empty(&cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq)) {
> +		raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +		goto retry;
> +	}
> +	cfs_b->runtime = runtime;
> +	cfs_b->idle = idle;
> +out_unlock:
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +out:
>  	return idle;
>  }
>  #else

Reviewed-by: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

It would be better if this unthrottle patch (09/15) comes before
throttle patch (08/15) in this series, not to make a small window
in the history that throttled entity never back to the run queue.
But I'm just paranoid...
 

Thanks,
H.Seto

--
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/