[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52FA0577.6080607@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:11:51 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: mingo@...nel.org, alex.shi@...aro.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] sched: Fix race in idle_balance()
On 02/10/2014 10:24 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> HI Daniel,
>
> Isn't the only scenario where another cpu can put an idle task on
> our runqueue,
Well, I am not sure to understand what you meant, but I assume you are
asking if it is possible to have a task to be pulled when we are idle,
right ?
This patch fixes the race when the current cpu is *about* to enter idle
when calling schedule().
> in nohz_idle_balance() where only the cpus in
> the nohz.idle_cpus_mask are iterated through. But for the case
> that this patch is addressing, the cpu in question is not yet a part
> of the nohz.idle_cpus_mask right?
>
> Any other case would trigger load balancing on the same cpu, but
> we are preempt_disabled and interrupt disabled at this point.
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>> The scheduler main function 'schedule()' checks if there are no more tasks
>> on the runqueue. Then it checks if a task should be pulled in the current
>> runqueue in idle_balance() assuming it will go to idle otherwise.
>>
>> But the idle_balance() releases the rq->lock in order to lookup in the sched
>> domains and takes the lock again right after. That opens a window where
>> another cpu may put a task in our runqueue, so we won't go to idle but
>> we have filled the idle_stamp, thinking we will.
>>
>> This patch closes the window by checking if the runqueue has been modified
>> but without pulling a task after taking the lock again, so we won't go to idle
>> right after in the __schedule() function.
>>
>> Cc: alex.shi@...aro.org
>> Cc: peterz@...radead.org
>> Cc: mingo@...nel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 428bc9d..5ebc681 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6589,6 +6589,13 @@ void idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
>>
>> raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
>>
>> + /*
>> + * While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock.
>> + * A task could have be enqueued in the meantime
>> + */
>> + if (this_rq->nr_running && !pulled_task)
>> + return;
>> +
>> if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
>> /*
>> * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists