| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:22:32 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] sched/deadline: support dl task migration during cpu
hotplug
Hi Juri,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:08:44PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
Btw, could you review other three deadline patches of mine?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/6/51
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/10/817
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/10/818
Great thanks for your time. ;-)
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
>Hi,
>
>On 12/11/14 01:06, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> I observe that dl task can't be migrated to other cpus during cpu hotplug,
>> in addition, task may/may not be running again if cpu is added back. The
>> root cause which I found is that dl task will be throtted and removed from
>> dl rq after comsuming all budget, which leads to stop task can't pick it up
>> from dl rq and migrate to other cpus during hotplug.
>>
>> The method to reproduce:
>> schedtool -E -t 50000:100000 -e ./test
>> Actually test is just a simple for loop. Then observe which cpu the test
>> task is on.
>> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/online
>>
>> This patch adds the dl task migration during cpu hotplug by finding a most
>> suitable later deadline rq after dl timer fire if current rq is offline,
>> if fail to find a suitable later deadline rq then fallback to any eligible
>> online cpu in order that the deadline task will come back to us, and the
>> push/pull mechanism should then move it around properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> v4 -> v5:
>> * remove raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
>> * cleanup codes, spotted by Peterz
>> * cleanup patch description
>> v3 -> v4:
>> * use tsk_cpus_allowed wrapper
>> * fix compile error
>> v2 -> v3:
>> * don't get_task_struct
>> * if cannot preempt any rq, fallback to pick any online cpus
>> * use cpu_active_mask as original later_mask if cpu is offline
>> v1 -> v2:
>> * push the task to another cpu in dl_task_timer() if rq is offline.
>>
>> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> index f3d7776..7c31906 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> @@ -487,6 +487,7 @@ static int start_dl_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, bool boosted)
>> return hrtimer_active(&dl_se->dl_timer);
>> }
>>
>> +static struct rq *find_lock_later_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq);
>> /*
>> * This is the bandwidth enforcement timer callback. If here, we know
>> * a task is not on its dl_rq, since the fact that the timer was running
>> @@ -538,6 +539,43 @@ again:
>> update_rq_clock(rq);
>> dl_se->dl_throttled = 0;
>> dl_se->dl_yielded = 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * So if we find that the rq the task was on is no longer
>> + * available, we need to select a new rq.
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely(!rq->online)) {
>> + struct rq *later_rq = NULL;
>> +
>> + later_rq = find_lock_later_rq(p, rq);
>> +
>> + if (!later_rq) {
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If cannot preempt any rq, fallback to pick any
>> + * online cpu.
>> + */
>> + cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpu_active_mask,
>> + tsk_cpus_allowed(p));
>> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
>> + pr_warn("fail to find any online cpu and task will never come back\n");
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> + later_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>> + }
>> +
>> + deactivate_task(rq, p, 0);
>> + set_task_cpu(p, later_rq->cpu);
>> + activate_task(later_rq, p, 0);
>> +
>> + resched_curr(later_rq);
>> +
>> + double_unlock_balance(rq, later_rq);
>> +
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
>> enqueue_task_dl(rq, p, ENQUEUE_REPLENISH);
>> if (dl_task(rq->curr))
>> @@ -1185,8 +1223,9 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
>> * We have to consider system topology and task affinity
>> * first, then we can look for a suitable cpu.
>> */
>> - cpumask_copy(later_mask, task_rq(task)->rd->span);
>> - cpumask_and(later_mask, later_mask, cpu_active_mask);
>> + cpumask_copy(later_mask, cpu_active_mask);
>> + if (likely(task_rq(task)->online))
>> + cpumask_and(later_mask, later_mask, task_rq(task)->rd->span);
>
>So, here you consider the span only when the task_rq is online,
>but there might be others cpus still online belonging to the same
>rd->span. And you have to consider them when migrating. Actually,
>migration must still be restricted to the online cpus of task's
>original rd->span, or I fear you can break clustered scheduling.
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Juri
>
>> cpumask_and(later_mask, later_mask, &task->cpus_allowed);
>> best_cpu = cpudl_find(&task_rq(task)->rd->cpudl,
>> task, later_mask);
>>
--
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