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

[Paul Turner]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Hidetoshi Seto
<seto.hidetoshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Remaining runtime of <= 0 implies that there was no bandwidth
available.  See checks below et al. in check_... functions.

We choose the minimum amount here to return to a positive quota state.

Originally I had elected to take a full slice here.  The limitation
became that this then effectively duplicated the assign_cfs_rq_runtime
path, and would require the quota handed out in each to be in
lockstep.  Another trade-off is be that when we're in a large state of
arrears, handing out this extra bandwidth (in excess of the minimum
+1) up-front may prevent us from unthrottling another cfs_rq.

Will add a comment explaining that the minimum amount to leave arrears
is chosen above.

>
>> +             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...?
>

s/new new/new/ :)

>> +     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...
>

The feature is inert unless bandwidth is set so this should be safe.

The trade-off with reversing the order is that a patch undoing state
that doesn't yet exist looks very strange :).  If the above is a
concern I'd probably prefer to separate it into 3 parts:
1. add throttle
2. add unthrottle
3. enable throttle

Where (3) would consist only of the enqueue/put checks to trigger throttling.


>
> 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/