Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2
From: Andy Lutomirski <hidden>
Date: 2016-09-16 16:29:38
Also in:
cgroups, lkml
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:12:58AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
On Sep 16, 2016 12:51 AM, "Peter Zijlstra" [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
BTW, Mike keeps mentioning exclusive cgroups as problematic with the no-internal-tasks constraints. Do exclusive cgroups still exist in cgroup2? Could we perhaps just remove that capability entirely? I've never understood what problem exlusive cpusets and such solve that can't be more comprehensibly solved by just assigning the cpusets the normal inclusive way.Without exclusive sets we cannot split the sched_domain structure. Which leads to not being able to actually partition things. That would break DL for one.Can you sketch out a toy example?[ Also see Documentation/cgroup-v1/cpusets.txt section 1.7 ] mkdir /cpuset mount -t cgroup -o cpuset none /cpuset mkdir /cpuset/A mkdir /cpuset/B cat /sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpulist > /cpuset/A/cpuset.cpus echo 0 > /cpuset/A/cpuset.mems cat /sys/devices/system/node/node1/cpulist > /cpuset/B/cpuset.cpus echo 1 > /cpuset/B/cpuset.mems # move all movable tasks into A cat /cpuset/tasks | while read task; do echo $task > /cpuset/A/tasks ; done # kill machine wide load-balancing echo 0 > /cpuset/cpuset.sched_load_balance # now place 'special' tasks in B This partitions the scheduler into two, one for each node. Hereafter no task will be moved from one node to another. The load-balancer is split in two, one balances in A one balances in B nothing crosses. (It is important that A.cpus and B.cpus do not intersect.) Ideally no task would remain in the root group, back in the day we could actually do this (with exception of the cpu bound kernel threads), but this has significantly regressed :-( (still hate the workqueue affinity interface)
I wonder if we could address this by creating (automatically at boot or when the cpuset controller is enabled or whatever) a /cpuset/random_kernel_shit cgroup and have all of the unmoveable tasks land there?
As is, tasks that are left in the root group get balanced within whatever domain they ended up in.quoted
And what's DL?SCHED_DEADLINE, its a 'Global'-EDF like scheduler that doesn't support CPU affinities (because that doesn't make sense). The only way to restrict it is to partition. 'Global' because you can partition it. If you reduce your system to single CPU partitions you'll reduce to P-EDF. (The same is true of SCHED_FIFO, that's a 'Global'-FIFO on the same partition scheme, it however does support sched_affinity, but using it gives 'interesting' schedulability results -- call it a historic accident).
Hmm, I didn't realize that the deadline scheduler was global. But ISTM requiring the use of "exclusive" to get this working is unfortunate. What if a user wants two separate partitions, one using CPUs 1 and 2 and the other using CPUs 3 and 4 (with 5 reserved for non-RT stuff)? Shouldn't we be able to have a cgroup for each of the DL partitions and do something to tell the deadline scheduler "here is your domain"?
Note that related, but differently, we have the isolcpus boot parameter
which creates single CPU partitions for all listed CPUs and gives the
rest to the root cpuset. Ideally we'd kill this option given its a boot
time setting (for something which is trivially to do at runtime).
But this cannot be done, because that would mean we'd have to start with
a !0 cpuset layout:
'/'
load_balance=0
/ \
'system' 'isolated'
cpus=~isolcpus cpus=isolcpus
load_balance=0
And start with _everything_ in the /system group (inclding default IRQ
affinities).
Of course, that will break everything cgroup :-(I would actually *much* prefer this over the status quo. I'm tired of my crappy, partially-working script that sits there and creates exactly this configuration (minus the isolcpus part because I actually want migration to work) on boot. (Actually, it could have two automatic cgroups: /kernel and /init -- init and UMH would go in init and kernel threads and such would go in /kernel. Userspace would be able to request that a different cgroup be used for newly-created kernel threads.) Heck, even systemd would probably prefer this. Then it could cleanly expose a "slice" or whatever it's called for random kernel shit and at least you could configure it meaningfully.