Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 3/4] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration instead of pulling
From: Frank Rowand <hidden>
Date: 2012-12-11 00:50:05
Also in:
lkml
On 12/07/12 15:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
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 interations 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. What happened was another RT task would be scheduled on one of the CPUs that was running our test, when the other CPUS test went to sleep and scheduled idle. This cause 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. As these locks were blocked, any wakeups on these CPUs would also block on these locks, and the wait time escalated. I've tried various methods to lesson 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.
You are saying that the pulling CPU might not be in the pulled task's
affinity? But isn't that checked:
pull_rt_task()
pick_next_highest_task_rt()
pick_rt_task()
if ( ... || cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p) ...
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.
That gives me the opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling. Processing an IPI on the overloaded CPU is not free (I'm being ARM-centric), and this is putting more load on the already overloaded CPU. I do recognize that you have actual measurements below that show goodness for the pathological case you debugged. I'm still mulling this all over...
With this patch, the latency dropped to just 150us over a 20 hour run. Without the patch, the huge latencies would trigger in seconds.
-Frank