Re: [Patch] sched/fair: Avoid throttle_list starvation with low cfs quota

[Phil Auld]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:32:44AM +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> I've Cc:-ed a handful of gents who worked on CFS bandwidth details to widen the discussion. 
> Patch quoted below.
> 
> Looks like a real bug that needs to be fixed - and at first sight the quota of 1000 looks very 
> low - could we improve the arithmetics perhaps?
> 
> A low quota of 1000 is used because there's many VMs or containers provisioned on the system 
> that is triggering the bug, right?
> 


Thanks for taking a look.


The quota is extremely low. I believe that's a different issue, though.  The kernel 
allows this setting and should handle it better than it currently does.  The proposed 
patch fixes it so that all the tasks make progress (even if not much progress) rather 
than having some starve at the back of the list. 


Cheers,
Phil


> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> * Phil Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > From: "Phil Auld" <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > sched/fair: Avoid throttle_list starvation with low cfs quota
> > 
> > With a very low cpu.cfs_quota_us setting, such as the minimum of 1000, 
> > distribute_cfs_runtime may not empty the throttled_list before it runs 
> > out of runtime to distribute. In that case, due to the change from 
> > c06f04c7048 to put throttled entries at the head of the list, later entries 
> > on the list will starve.  Essentially, the same X processes will get pulled 
> > off the list, given CPU time and then, when expired, get put back on the 
> > head of the list where distribute_cfs_runtime will give runtime to the same 
> > set of processes leaving the rest.
> > 
> > Fix the issue by setting a bit in struct cfs_bandwidth when 
> > distribute_cfs_runtime is running, so that the code in throttle_cfs_rq can 
> > decide to put the throttled entry on the tail or the head of the list.  The 
> > bit is set/cleared by the callers of distribute_cfs_runtime while they hold 
> > cfs_bandwidth->lock. 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: c06f04c70489 ("sched: Fix potential near-infinite distribute_cfs_runtime() loop")
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > 
> > This is easy to reproduce with a handful of cpu consumers. I use crash on 
> > the live system. In some cases you can simply look at the throttled list and 
> > see the later entries are not changing:
> > 
> > crash> list cfs_rq.throttled_list -H 0xffff90b54f6ade40 -s cfs_rq.runtime_remaining | paste - - | awk '{print $1"  "$4}' | pr -t -n3
> >   1     ffff90b56cb2d200  -976050
> >   2     ffff90b56cb2cc00  -484925
> >   3     ffff90b56cb2bc00  -658814
> >   4     ffff90b56cb2ba00  -275365
> >   5     ffff90b166a45600  -135138
> >   6     ffff90b56cb2da00  -282505
> >   7     ffff90b56cb2e000  -148065
> >   8     ffff90b56cb2fa00  -872591
> >   9     ffff90b56cb2c000  -84687
> >  10     ffff90b56cb2f000  -87237
> >  11     ffff90b166a40a00  -164582
> > crash> list cfs_rq.throttled_list -H 0xffff90b54f6ade40 -s cfs_rq.runtime_remaining | paste - - | awk '{print $1"  "$4}' | pr -t -n3
> >   1     ffff90b56cb2d200  -994147
> >   2     ffff90b56cb2cc00  -306051
> >   3     ffff90b56cb2bc00  -961321
> >   4     ffff90b56cb2ba00  -24490
> >   5     ffff90b166a45600  -135138
> >   6     ffff90b56cb2da00  -282505
> >   7     ffff90b56cb2e000  -148065
> >   8     ffff90b56cb2fa00  -872591
> >   9     ffff90b56cb2c000  -84687
> >  10     ffff90b56cb2f000  -87237
> >  11     ffff90b166a40a00  -164582
> > 
> > Sometimes it is easier to see by finding a process getting starved and looking 
> > at the sched_info:
> > 
> > crash> task ffff8eb765994500 sched_info
> > PID: 7800   TASK: ffff8eb765994500  CPU: 16  COMMAND: "cputest"
> >   sched_info = {
> >     pcount = 8, 
> >     run_delay = 697094208, 
> >     last_arrival = 240260125039, 
> >     last_queued = 240260327513
> >   }, 
> > crash> task ffff8eb765994500 sched_info
> > PID: 7800   TASK: ffff8eb765994500  CPU: 16  COMMAND: "cputest"
> >   sched_info = {
> >     pcount = 8, 
> >     run_delay = 697094208, 
> >     last_arrival = 240260125039, 
> >     last_queued = 240260327513
> >   }, 
> > 
> > 
> >  fair.c  |   22 +++++++++++++++++++---
> >  sched.h |    2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 7fc4a371bdd2..f88e00705b55 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4476,9 +4476,13 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Add to the _head_ of the list, so that an already-started
> > -	 * distribute_cfs_runtime will not see us
> > +	 * distribute_cfs_runtime will not see us. If disribute_cfs_runtime is
> > +	 * not running add to the tail so that later runqueues don't get starved.
> >  	 */
> > -	list_add_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> > +	if (cfs_b->distribute_running)
> > +		list_add_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> > +	else
> > +		list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * If we're the first throttled task, make sure the bandwidth
> > @@ -4622,14 +4626,16 @@ static int do_sched_cfs_period_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, int overrun)
> >  	 * in us over-using our runtime if it is all used during this loop, but
> >  	 * only by limited amounts in that extreme case.
> >  	 */
> > -	while (throttled && cfs_b->runtime > 0) {
> > +	while (throttled && cfs_b->runtime > 0 && !cfs_b->distribute_running) {
> >  		runtime = cfs_b->runtime;
> > +		cfs_b->distribute_running = 1;
> >  		raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >  		/* we can't nest cfs_b->lock while distributing bandwidth */
> >  		runtime = distribute_cfs_runtime(cfs_b, runtime,
> >  						 runtime_expires);
> >  		raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >  
> > +		cfs_b->distribute_running = 0;
> >  		throttled = !list_empty(&cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> >  
> >  		cfs_b->runtime -= min(runtime, cfs_b->runtime);
> > @@ -4740,6 +4746,11 @@ static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >  
> >  	/* confirm we're still not at a refresh boundary */
> >  	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> > +	if (cfs_b->distribute_running) {
> > +		raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	if (runtime_refresh_within(cfs_b, min_bandwidth_expiration)) {
> >  		raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >  		return;
> > @@ -4749,6 +4760,9 @@ static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >  		runtime = cfs_b->runtime;
> >  
> >  	expires = cfs_b->runtime_expires;
> > +	if (runtime)
> > +		cfs_b->distribute_running = 1;
> > +
> >  	raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >  
> >  	if (!runtime)
> > @@ -4759,6 +4773,7 @@ static void do_sched_cfs_slack_timer(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >  	raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >  	if (expires == cfs_b->runtime_expires)
> >  		cfs_b->runtime -= min(runtime, cfs_b->runtime);
> > +	cfs_b->distribute_running = 0;
> >  	raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -4867,6 +4882,7 @@ void init_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
> >  	cfs_b->period_timer.function = sched_cfs_period_timer;
> >  	hrtimer_init(&cfs_b->slack_timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> >  	cfs_b->slack_timer.function = sched_cfs_slack_timer;
> > +	cfs_b->distribute_running = 0;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void init_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > index 455fa330de04..9683f458aec7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth {
> >  	int			nr_periods;
> >  	int			nr_throttled;
> >  	u64			throttled_time;
> > +
> > +	bool                    distribute_running;
> >  #endif
> >  };
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -- 

--