diff options
| author | Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> | 2023-12-21 17:40:14 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> | 2023-12-29 13:22:03 +0100 |
| commit | f60a631ab9ed5df15e446269ea515f2b8948ba0c (patch) | |
| tree | 51dbc722cf4ab6fe0e5b2e7b396787f180cae463 /include/trace | |
| parent | 5254c0cbc92d2a08e75443bdb914f1c4839cdf5a (diff) | |
sched/fair: Fix tg->load when offlining a CPU
When a CPU is taken offline, the contribution of its cfs_rqs to task_groups'
load may remain and will negatively impact the calculation of the share of
the online CPUs.
To fix this bug, clear the contribution of an offlining CPU to task groups'
load and skip its contribution while it is inactive.
Here's the reproducer of the anomaly, by Imran Khan:
"So far I have encountered only one rather lengthy way of reproducing this issue,
which is as follows:
1. Take a KVM guest (booted with 4 CPUs and can be scaled up to 124 CPUs) and
create 2 custom cgroups: /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/test_group_1 and /sys/fs/cgroup/
cpu/test_group_2
2. Assign a CPU intensive workload to each of these cgroups and start the
workload.
For my tests I am using following app:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
unsigned long count, i, val;
if (argc != 2) {
printf("usage: ./a.out <number of random nums to generate> \n");
return 0;
}
count = strtoul(argv[1], NULL, 10);
printf("Generating %lu random numbers \n", count);
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
val = rand();
val = val % 2;
//usleep(1);
}
printf("Generated %lu random numbers \n", count);
return 0;
}
Also since the system is booted with 4 CPUs, in order to completely load the
system I am also launching 4 instances of same test app under:
/sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/
3. We can see that both of the cgroups get similar CPU time:
# systemd-cgtop --depth 1
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 659 - 5.5G - -
/system.slice - - 5.7G - -
/test_group_1 4 - - - -
/test_group_2 3 - - - -
/user.slice 31 - 56.5M - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 659 394.6 5.5G - -
/test_group_2 3 65.7 - - -
/user.slice 29 55.1 48.0M - -
/test_group_1 4 47.3 - - -
/system.slice - 2.2 5.7G - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 659 394.8 5.5G - -
/test_group_1 4 62.9 - - -
/user.slice 28 44.9 54.2M - -
/test_group_2 3 44.7 - - -
/system.slice - 0.9 5.7G - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 659 394.4 5.5G - -
/test_group_2 3 58.8 - - -
/test_group_1 4 51.9 - - -
/user.slice 30 39.3 59.6M - -
/system.slice - 1.9 5.7G - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 659 394.7 5.5G - -
/test_group_1 4 60.9 - - -
/test_group_2 3 57.9 - - -
/user.slice 28 43.5 36.9M - -
/system.slice - 3.0 5.7G - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 659 395.0 5.5G - -
/test_group_1 4 66.8 - - -
/test_group_2 3 56.3 - - -
/user.slice 29 43.1 51.8M - -
/system.slice - 0.7 5.7G - -
4. Now move systemd-udevd to one of these test groups, say test_group_1, and
perform scale up to 124 CPUs followed by scale down back to 4 CPUs from the
host side.
5. Run the same workload i.e 4 instances of CPU hogger under /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu
and one instance of CPU hogger each in /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/test_group_1 and
/sys/fs/cgroup/test_group_2.
It can be seen that test_group_1 (the one where systemd-udevd was moved) is getting
much less CPU time than the test_group_2, even though at this point of time both of
these groups have only CPU hogger running:
# systemd-cgtop --depth 1
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1219 - 5.4G - -
/system.slice - - 5.6G - -
/test_group_1 4 - - - -
/test_group_2 3 - - - -
/user.slice 26 - 91.3M - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1221 394.3 5.4G - -
/test_group_2 3 82.7 - - -
/test_group_1 4 14.3 - - -
/system.slice - 0.8 5.6G - -
/user.slice 26 0.4 91.2M - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1221 394.6 5.4G - -
/test_group_2 3 67.4 - - -
/system.slice - 24.6 5.6G - -
/test_group_1 4 12.5 - - -
/user.slice 26 0.4 91.2M - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1221 395.2 5.4G - -
/test_group_2 3 60.9 - - -
/system.slice - 27.9 5.6G - -
/test_group_1 4 12.2 - - -
/user.slice 26 0.4 91.2M - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1221 395.2 5.4G - -
/test_group_2 3 69.4 - - -
/test_group_1 4 13.9 - - -
/user.slice 28 1.6 92.0M - -
/system.slice - 1.0 5.6G - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1221 395.6 5.4G - -
/test_group_2 3 59.3 - - -
/test_group_1 4 14.1 - - -
/user.slice 28 1.3 92.2M - -
/system.slice - 0.7 5.6G - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1221 395.5 5.4G - -
/test_group_2 3 67.2 - - -
/test_group_1 4 11.5 - - -
/user.slice 28 1.3 92.5M - -
/system.slice - 0.6 5.6G - -
Path Tasks %CPU Memory Input/s Output/s
/ 1221 395.1 5.4G - -
/test_group_2 3 76.8 - - -
/test_group_1 4 12.9 - - -
/user.slice 28 1.3 92.8M - -
/system.slice - 1.2 5.6G - -
From sched_debug data it can be seen that in bad case the load.weight of per-CPU
sched entities corresponding to test_group_1 has reduced significantly and
also load_avg of test_group_1 remains much higher than that of test_group_2,
even though systemd-udevd stopped running long time back and at this point of
time both cgroups just have the CPU hogger app as running entity."
[ mingo: Added details from the original discussion, plus minor edits to the patch. ]
Reported-by: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Tested-by: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Tested-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231223111545.62135-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Diffstat (limited to 'include/trace')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions