Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] Sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use

[Phil Auld]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 05:37:31PM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 07:13:42AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 12:49:34AM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:33:57AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > > CFS bandwidth limits and NOHZ full don't play well together.  Tasks
> > > > can easily run well past their quotas before a remote tick does
> > > > accounting.  This leads to long, multi-period stalls before such
> > > > tasks can run again. Currently, when presented with these conflicting
> > > > requirements the scheduler is favoring nohz_full and letting the tick
> > > > be stopped. However, nohz tick stopping is already best-effort, there
> > > > are a number of conditions that can prevent it, whereas cfs runtime
> > > > bandwidth is expected to be enforced.
> > > > 
> > > > Make the scheduler favor bandwidth over stopping the tick by setting
> > > > TICK_DEP_BIT_SCHED when the only running task is a cfs task with
> > > > runtime limit enabled. We use cfs_b->hierarchical_quota to
> > > > determine if the task requires the tick.
> > > > 
> > > > Add check in pick_next_task_fair() as well since that is where
> > > > we have a handle on the task that is actually going to be running.
> > > > 
> > > > Add check in sched_can_stop_tick() to cover some edge cases such
> > > > as nr_running going from 2->1 and the 1 remains the running task.
> > > 
> > > These appear fine to me, except:
> > >
> > > > Add sched_feat HZ_BW (off by default) to control the tick_stop
> > > > behavior.
> > > 
> > > What was the thinking here? This means nobody will be using this -- why
> > > would you want this default disabled?
> > > 
> > 
> > That was just a hedge in case it caused issues. I'd probably have had to
> > enable it in RHEL anyway. Using a feature was to make it inocuous when
> > disabled.  Would you prefer me to enable it or remove the sched_feat
> > entirely? (or do you want to just switch that to true when you apply it?)
> 
> I've edited it to default enabled -- we can pull the feature flag
> eventually I suppose.
> 
> Things didn't readily apply, so I've kicked at it a little. Should be in
> queue/sched/core for the robots to chew on.
>

Or "choke on" as the case may be :)
I sent you something that will hopefully clean that up.


Thanks!


Cheers,
Phil
--