Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1292008

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems

Show key headers only | View raw

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:54:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 06:42:24AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > In most cases 'r' shouldn't exceed 1024 and util_sum not significantly
> > > exceed 1024*47742, but in extreme cases like spawning lots of new tasks
> > > it may potentially overflow 32 bit. Newly created tasks contribute
> > > 1024*47742 each to the rq util_sum, which means that more than ~87 new
> > > tasks on a single rq will get us in trouble I think.
> 
> > Both can workaround the issue with additional overhead. But I suspectthey
> > will end up going in the wrong direction for util_avg. The question is a
> > big util_sum (much bigger than 1024) may not be in a right range for it
> > to be used in load balancing.
> 
> Right, it being >100% doesn't make any sense. We should look at ensuring
> it saturates at 100%, or at least have it be bounded much tighter to
> that, as currently its entirely unbounded, which is quite horrible.
> 
> > The problem is that it is not so good to initiate a new task's util_avg
> > to 1024. At least, it makes much less sense than a new task's load_avg
> > being initiated to its full weight. Because the top util_avg should be
> > well bounded by 1024 - the CPU's full utilization.
> > 
> > So, maybe give the initial util_sum to an average of its cfs_rq, like:
> 
> >         cfs_rq->avg.util_sum / cfs_rq->load.weight * task->load.weight
> > 
> > And make sure that initial value's is bounded on various conditions.
> 
> That more or less results in an harmonic series, which is still very
> much unbounded.
> 
> However, I think that makes sense, but would propose doing it
> differently. That condition is generally a maximum (assuming proper
> functioning of the weight based scheduling etc..) for any one task, so
> on migrate we can hard clip to this value.
> 
> That still doesn't get rid of the harmonic series though, so we need
> more. Now we can obviously also hard clip the sum on add, which I
> suspect we'll need to do.
> 
> That laves us with a problem on remove though, at which point we can
> clip to this max if needed, but that will add a fair amount of cost to
> remove :/
> 
> Alternatively, and I still have to go look through the code, we should
> clip when we've already calculated the weight based ratio anyway,
> avoiding the cost of that extra division.
> 
> In any case, ideas, we'll have to play with I suppose.

What about this for a task? To cover the corner cases, it unexpectedly
bacomes something like this :)

Some more thoughts, (1) what if we just init the util_avg to 0? (2) there
are still loopholes where some other util_avg may exceed 1024.

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index a2ecefd..d4e0b13 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2463,6 +2463,47 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int policy,
 extern void init_dl_bw(struct dl_bw *dl_b);
 
 /*
+ * With new tasks being created, their initial util_avgs are extrapolated
+ * based on the cfs_rq's current util_avg:
+ *
+ * util_avg = cfs_rq->util_avg / (cfs_rq->load_avg + 1) * se.load.weight
+ *
+ * However, in many cases, the above util_avg does not give a desired
+ * value. Moreover, the sum of the util_avgs may be divergent, such
+ * as when the series is a harmonic series.
+ *
+ * To solve this problem, we also cap the util_avg of successive tasks to
+ * only 1/2 of the left utilization budget:
+ *
+ * util_avg_cap = (1024 - cfs_rq->avg.util_avg) / 2^n
+ *
+ * where n denotes the nth task.
+ *
+ * As such, a simplest series from the begining would be like:
+ *
+ *  task  util_avg: 512, 256, 128,  64,  32,   16,    8, ...
+ * cfs_rq util_avg: 512, 768, 896, 960, 992, 1008, 1016, ...
+ *
+ * Finally, that extrapolated util_avg is clamped to the cap (util_avg_cap)
+ * if util_avg > util_avg_cap.
+ */
+static void post_init_entity_util_avg(struct sched_entity *se)
+{
+	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = se->cfs_rq;
+	struct sched_avg *sa = &se->avg;
+	long delta = (scale_load_down(SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) - cfs_rq->avg.util_avg) / 2;
+
+	if (delta > 0) {
+		sa->util_avg = cfs_rq->avg.util_avg * se.load.weight;
+		sa->util_avg /=	 (cfs_rq->avg.load_avg + 1);
+
+		if (sa->util_avg > delta)
+			sa->util_avg = delta;
+		sa->util_sum = sa->util_avg * LOAD_AVG_MAX;
+	}
+}
+
+/*
  * wake_up_new_task - wake up a newly created task for the first time.
  *
  * This function will do some initial scheduler statistics housekeeping
@@ -2484,6 +2525,7 @@ void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct *p)
 	 *  - any previously selected cpu might disappear through hotplug
 	 */
 	set_task_cpu(p, select_task_rq(p, task_cpu(p), SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0));
+	post_init_entity_util_avg(&p->se);
 #endif
 
 	rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index e3266eb..85c393e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -682,8 +682,11 @@ void init_entity_runnable_average(struct sched_entity *se)
 	sa->period_contrib = 1023;
 	sa->load_avg = scale_load_down(se->load.weight);
 	sa->load_sum = sa->load_avg * LOAD_AVG_MAX;
-	sa->util_avg = scale_load_down(SCHED_LOAD_SCALE);
-	sa->util_sum = sa->util_avg * LOAD_AVG_MAX;
+	/*
+	 * At this point, util_avg won't be used in select_task_rq_fair anyway
+	 */
+	sa->util_avg = 0;
+	sa->util_sum = 0;
 	/* when this task enqueue'ed, it will contribute to its cfs_rq's load_avg */
 }
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> - 2015-12-14 07:30 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-14 13:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> - 2015-12-14 14:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-14 15:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> - 2015-12-14 15:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> - 2015-12-15 11:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2015-12-15 23:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix mul overflow on 32-bit systems Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> - 2015-12-18 11:20 +0100

csiph-web