Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched/fair: Rename set_next_buddy() to set_next_pick()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 10:43:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > This is a mechanism to set the next task_pick target,
> > 'buddy' is too ambiguous and refers to a historic feature we
> > don't have anymore.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 93ea653065f5..fe730f232ffd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -3200,7 +3200,16 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> >  	hrtick_update(rq);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se);
> > +static void set_next_pick(struct sched_entity *se)
> > +{
> > +	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> > +		if (SCHED_WARN_ON(!se->on_rq))
> > +			return;
> > +		if (se_is_idle(se))
> > +			return;
> > +		cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
> > +	}
> > +}
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * The dequeue_task method is called before nr_running is
> > @@ -3240,7 +3249,7 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> >  			 * p is sleeping when it is within its sched_slice.
> >  			 */
> >  			if (task_sleep && se && !throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
> > -				set_next_buddy(se);
> > +				set_next_pick(se);
> >  			break;
> >  		}
> >  		flags |= DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
> > @@ -4631,17 +4640,6 @@ balance_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >  static inline void set_task_max_allowed_capacity(struct task_struct *p) {}
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> >  
> > -static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
> > -{
> > -	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> > -		if (SCHED_WARN_ON(!se->on_rq))
> > -			return;
> > -		if (se_is_idle(se))
> > -			return;
> > -		cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
> > -	}
> > -}
> > -
> 
> Hurmmm.. afaict the only actual user of cfs_rq->next left is task_hot(),
> no? Is that thing worth it?

Yeah, so:

1)

While you are correct in the context of my patch, I think that might be a 
bug - the yield_to() methods are intending to use ->next:

        /* Tell the scheduler that we'd really like se to run next. */
        set_next_buddy(se);

        yield_task_fair(rq);

.. and yield_to() would rather fundamentally rely on ->next overriding the 
next-task-pick selection, but it won't due to NEXT_BUDDY being false:

static struct sched_entity *
pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
{               
        /*      
         * Enabling NEXT_BUDDY will affect latency but not fairness.
         */
        if (sched_feat(NEXT_BUDDY) &&
            cfs_rq->next && entity_eligible(cfs_rq, cfs_rq->next))
                return cfs_rq->next;



> That is, should we not totally nuke the thing?

I don't think we want to nuke it - there's 3 users:

 - yield()
 - CFS bandwidth
 - wakeup

I think the yield() and CFS bandwidth ones are genuine, but non-working due 
to NEXT_BUDDY at 0. Wakeup was the original intended NEXT_BUDDY logic, but 
it got turned off due to some performance or latency considerations that 
might or might not be valid & relevant today.

2)

Even the task_hot() use of ->next isn't spurious: if a task has been marked 
as run-next, then presumably the current task is descheduling and we should 
probably not tear its ->next away in load-balancing.

3)

Side note: a set rq->next should probably reduce a candidate runqueue's 
weight both in periodic load-balancing and in idle-balancing, by rq->curr's 
weight or so?

So what I think we should do is to keep ->next and fix all its intended 
uses, and make it all unconditional by removing both NEXT_BUDDY and 
CACHE_HOT_BUDDY. I can cook up a series if you agree in principle.

Thanks,

	Ingo