linux/kernel/sched/features.h, branch v4.1

sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration instead of pulling

2015-03-23T09:55:22Z

When debugging the latencies on a 40 core box, where we hit 300 to 500 microsecond latencies, I found there was a huge contention on the runqueue locks. Investigating it further, running ftrace, I found that it was due to the pulling of RT tasks. The test that was run was the following: cyclictest --numa -p95 -m -d0 -i100 This created a thread on each CPU, that would set its wakeup in iterations of 100 microseconds. The -d0 means that all the threads had the same interval (100us). Each thread sleeps for 100us and wakes up and measures its latencies. cyclictest is maintained at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clrkwllms/rt-tests.git What happened was another RT task would be scheduled on one of the CPUs that was running our test, when the other CPU tests went to sleep and scheduled idle. This caused the "pull" operation to execute on all these CPUs. Each one of these saw the RT task that was overloaded on the CPU of the test that was still running, and each one tried to grab that task in a thundering herd way. To grab the task, each thread would do a double rq lock grab, grabbing its own lock as well as the rq of the overloaded CPU. As the sched domains on this box was rather flat for its size, I saw up to 12 CPUs block on this lock at once. This caused a ripple affect with the rq locks especially since the taking was done via a double rq lock, which means that several of the CPUs had their own rq locks held while trying to take this rq lock. As these locks were blocked, any wakeups or load balanceing on these CPUs would also block on these locks, and the wait time escalated. I've tried various methods to lessen the load, but things like an atomic counter to only let one CPU grab the task wont work, because the task may have a limited affinity, and we may pick the wrong CPU to take that lock and do the pull, to only find out that the CPU we picked isn't in the task's affinity. Instead of doing the PULL, I now have the CPUs that want the pull to send over an IPI to the overloaded CPU, and let that CPU pick what CPU to push the task to. No more need to grab the rq lock, and the push/pull algorithm still works fine. With this patch, the latency dropped to just 150us over a 20 hour run. Without the patch, the huge latencies would trigger in seconds. I've created a new sched feature called RT_PUSH_IPI, which is enabled by default. When RT_PUSH_IPI is not enabled, the old method of grabbing the rq locks and having the pulling CPU do the work is implemented. When RT_PUSH_IPI is enabled, the IPI is sent to the overloaded CPU to do a push. To enabled or disable this at run time: # mount -t debugfs nodev /sys/kernel/debug # echo RT_PUSH_IPI > /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features or # echo NO_RT_PUSH_IPI > /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features Update: This original patch would send an IPI to all CPUs in the RT overload list. But that could theoretically cause the reverse issue. That is, there could be lots of overloaded RT queues and one CPU lowers its priority. It would then send an IPI to all the overloaded RT queues and they could then all try to grab the rq lock of the CPU lowering its priority, and then we have the same problem. The latest design sends out only one IPI to the first overloaded CPU. It tries to push any tasks that it can, and then looks for the next overloaded CPU that can push to the source CPU. The IPIs stop when all overloaded CPUs that have pushable tasks that have priorities greater than the source CPU are covered. In case the source CPU lowers its priority again, a flag is set to tell the IPI traversal to restart with the first RT overloaded CPU after the source CPU. Parts-suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Joern Engel Cc: Clark Williams Cc: Mike Galbraith Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Thomas Gleixner Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150318144946.2f3cc982@gandalf.local.home Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

sched: Rename capacity related flags

2014-06-05T09:52:32Z

It is better not to think about compute capacity as being equivalent to "CPU power". The upcoming "power aware" scheduler work may create confusion with the notion of energy consumption if "power" is used too liberally. Let's rename the following feature flags since they do relate to capacity: SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER -> SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY ARCH_POWER -> ARCH_CAPACITY NONTASK_POWER -> NONTASK_CAPACITY Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Vincent Guittot Cc: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Morten Rasmussen Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org Cc: Andy Fleming Cc: Anton Blanchard Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Grant Likely Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Michael Ellerman Cc: Paul Gortmaker Cc: Paul Mackerras Cc: Preeti U Murthy Cc: Rob Herring Cc: Srivatsa S. Bhat Cc: Toshi Kani Cc: Vasant Hegde Cc: Vincent Guittot Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-e93lpnxb87owfievqatey6b5@git.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

sched/numa: Resist moving tasks towards nodes with fewer hinting faults

2013-10-09T10:40:27Z

Just as "sched: Favour moving tasks towards the preferred node" favours moving tasks towards nodes with a higher number of recorded NUMA hinting faults, this patch resists moving tasks towards nodes with lower faults. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Srikar Dronamraju Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1381141781-10992-24-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

sched/numa: Favour moving tasks towards the preferred node

2013-10-09T10:40:26Z

This patch favours moving tasks towards NUMA node that recorded a higher number of NUMA faults during active load balancing. Ideally this is self-reinforcing as the longer the task runs on that node, the more faults it should incur causing task_numa_placement to keep the task running on that node. In reality a big weakness is that the nodes CPUs can be overloaded and it would be more efficient to queue tasks on an idle node and migrate to the new node. This would require additional smarts in the balancer so for now the balancer will simply prefer to place the task on the preferred node for a PTE scans which is controlled by the numa_balancing_settle_count sysctl. Once the settle_count number of scans has complete the schedule is free to place the task on an alternative node if the load is imbalanced. [srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com: Fixed statistics] Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Srikar Dronamraju [ Tunable and use higher faults instead of preferred. ] Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1381141781-10992-23-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

Revert "mm: sched: numa: Delay PTE scanning until a task is scheduled on a new node"

2013-10-09T10:40:17Z

PTE scanning and NUMA hinting fault handling is expensive so commit 5bca2303 ("mm: sched: numa: Delay PTE scanning until a task is scheduled on a new node") deferred the PTE scan until a task had been scheduled on another node. The problem is that in the purely shared memory case that this may never happen and no NUMA hinting fault information will be captured. We are not ruling out the possibility that something better can be done here but for now, this patch needs to be reverted and depend entirely on the scan_delay to avoid punishing short-lived processes. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Srikar Dronamraju Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1381141781-10992-16-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

mutex: Move mutex spinning code from sched/core.c back to mutex.c

2013-04-19T07:33:34Z

As mentioned by Ingo, the SCHED_FEAT_OWNER_SPIN scheduler feature bit was really just an early hack to make with/without mutex-spinning testable. So it is no longer necessary. This patch removes the SCHED_FEAT_OWNER_SPIN feature bit and move the mutex spinning code from kernel/sched/core.c back to kernel/mutex.c which is where they should belong. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Chandramouleeswaran Aswin Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Norton Scott J Cc: Rik van Riel Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: David Howells Cc: Dave Jones Cc: Clark Williams Cc: Peter Zijlstra Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1366226594-5506-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

Merge tag 'balancenuma-v11' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma

2012-12-16T23:18:08Z

Pull Automatic NUMA Balancing bare-bones from Mel Gorman: "There are three implementations for NUMA balancing, this tree (balancenuma), numacore which has been developed in tip/master and autonuma which is in aa.git. In almost all respects balancenuma is the dumbest of the three because its main impact is on the VM side with no attempt to be smart about scheduling. In the interest of getting the ball rolling, it would be desirable to see this much merged for 3.8 with the view to building scheduler smarts on top and adapting the VM where required for 3.9. The most recent set of comparisons available from different people are mel: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/9/108 mingo: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/7/331 tglx: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/10/437 srikar: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/10/397 The results are a mixed bag. In my own tests, balancenuma does reasonably well. It's dumb as rocks and does not regress against mainline. On the other hand, Ingo's tests shows that balancenuma is incapable of converging for this workloads driven by perf which is bad but is potentially explained by the lack of scheduler smarts. Thomas' results show balancenuma improves on mainline but falls far short of numacore or autonuma. Srikar's results indicate we all suffer on a large machine with imbalanced node sizes. My own testing showed that recent numacore results have improved dramatically, particularly in the last week but not universally. We've butted heads heavily on system CPU usage and high levels of migration even when it shows that overall performance is better. There are also cases where it regresses. Of interest is that for specjbb in some configurations it will regress for lower numbers of warehouses and show gains for higher numbers which is not reported by the tool by default and sometimes missed in treports. Recently I reported for numacore that the JVM was crashing with NullPointerExceptions but currently it's unclear what the source of this problem is. Initially I thought it was in how numacore batch handles PTEs but I'm no longer think this is the case. It's possible numacore is just able to trigger it due to higher rates of migration. These reports were quite late in the cycle so I/we would like to start with this tree as it contains much of the code we can agree on and has not changed significantly over the last 2-3 weeks." * tag 'balancenuma-v11' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma: (50 commits) mm/rmap, migration: Make rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable mm/rmap: Convert the struct anon_vma::mutex to an rwsem mm: migrate: Account a transhuge page properly when rate limiting mm: numa: Account for failed allocations and isolations as migration failures mm: numa: Add THP migration for the NUMA working set scanning fault case build fix mm: numa: Add THP migration for the NUMA working set scanning fault case. mm: sched: numa: Delay PTE scanning until a task is scheduled on a new node mm: sched: numa: Control enabling and disabling of NUMA balancing if !SCHED_DEBUG mm: sched: numa: Control enabling and disabling of NUMA balancing mm: sched: Adapt the scanning rate if a NUMA hinting fault does not migrate mm: numa: Use a two-stage filter to restrict pages being migrated for unlikely task<->node relationships mm: numa: migrate: Set last_nid on newly allocated page mm: numa: split_huge_page: Transfer last_nid on tail page mm: numa: Introduce last_nid to the page frame sched: numa: Slowly increase the scanning period as NUMA faults are handled mm: numa: Rate limit setting of pte_numa if node is saturated mm: numa: Rate limit the amount of memory that is migrated between nodes mm: numa: Structures for Migrate On Fault per NUMA migration rate limiting mm: numa: Migrate pages handled during a pmd_numa hinting fault mm: numa: Migrate on reference policy ...

mm: sched: numa: Delay PTE scanning until a task is scheduled on a new node

2012-12-11T14:42:56Z

Due to the fact that migrations are driven by the CPU a task is running on there is no point tracking NUMA faults until one task runs on a new node. This patch tracks the first node used by an address space. Until it changes, PTE scanning is disabled and no NUMA hinting faults are trapped. This should help workloads that are short-lived, do not care about NUMA placement or have bound themselves to a single node. This takes advantage of the logic in "mm: sched: numa: Implement slow start for working set sampling" to delay when the checks are made. This will take advantage of processes that set their CPU and node bindings early in their lifetime. It will also potentially allow any initial load balancing to take place. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman

mm: sched: numa: Control enabling and disabling of NUMA balancing

2012-12-11T14:42:55Z

This patch adds Kconfig options and kernel parameters to allow the enabling and disabling of automatic NUMA balancing. The existance of such a switch was and is very important when debugging problems related to transparent hugepages and we should have the same for automatic NUMA placement. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman

mm: numa: Add fault driven placement and migration

2012-12-11T14:42:45Z

NOTE: This patch is based on "sched, numa, mm: Add fault driven placement and migration policy" but as it throws away all the policy to just leave a basic foundation I had to drop the signed-offs-by. This patch creates a bare-bones method for setting PTEs pte_numa in the context of the scheduler that when faulted later will be faulted onto the node the CPU is running on. In itself this does nothing useful but any placement policy will fundamentally depend on receiving hints on placement from fault context and doing something intelligent about it. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Acked-by: Rik van Riel