linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/rt: Add check_preempt_equal_prio() logic in pick_next_task

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADcy93WsUXpjSt==K5P++2P9D5mcBCoEAHjuegQnM3i51U_w3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:55:11 +0800
From:	Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/rt: Add check_preempt_equal_prio() logic in pick_next_task_rt()

Hi steve,

On 13 February 2015 at 08:04, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Sun,  8 Feb 2015 23:51:26 +0800
> Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> check_preempt_curr() doesn't call sched_class::check_preempt_curr
>> when the class of current is a higher level.
>
> The above sentence does not make sense.
>
>> So if there is a DL
>> task running when doing this for RT, check_preempt_equal_prio()
>
> Doing what for RT?
>
>> will definitely miss, which may result in some response latency
>
> Miss what?

Sorry, this may lack some information I need to further explain in detail.

>
>> for this RT task if it is pinned and there're some same-priority
>> migratable rt tasks already queued.
>>
>> We should do the similar thing in select_task_rq_rt() when first
>> picking rt tasks after running out of DL tasks.
>>
>> This patch tackles the issue by peeking the next rt task(RT1), and
>> if find RT1 migratable, just requeue it to the tail of the rq using
>> requeue_task_rt(rq, p, 0). In this way:
>> - If there do have another rt task(RT2) with the same priority as
>>   RT1, RT2 will finally be picked as the running task. While RT1
>>   will be pushed onto another cpu via RT1's post_schedule(), as
>>   RT1 is migratable. The difference from check_preempt_equal_prio()
>>   here is that we just don't care whether RT2 is migratable.
>>
>> - Otherwise, if there's no rt task with the same priority as RT1,
>>   RT1 will still be picked as the running task after the requeuing.
>
> What happens if there's three RT tasks of the same prio, RT1 is ready
> to run and is migratable, RT2 is pinned, RT3 is migratable
>
> RT1 just got pushed behind RT3 and it is now not the next one to run.
> RT2 will get this rq, RT3 will be pushed off, but say there's no more
> rq's available to run RT1.
>
> You just broke FIFO.

Yes, I've also thought of this point before.

If this is a problem, we may have the same thing happening in
current check_preempt_equal_prio() code:
When a pinned waking task preempts the current successfully,
because it thinks current is migratable via cpupri_find().

But when resched happens, things may change, i.e. current
becomes non-migratable, so the waking task gets running, while
the previous running task gets stuck. See, it also broke FIFO.

Thanks,
Xunlei

>
> I'm sorry, I'm thinking this is trying too hard to fix the users poor
> management of RT tasks.
>
> If you have 2 or more RT tasks of the same prio, you had better be damn
> aware that if one is pinned, it will block the others, even from
> migrating. You should not have pinned tasks of the same prio as those
> that can migrate.
>
> And if your system depends on DL tasks working nicely with RT tasks on
> the same CPU, it's even more broken by design.
>
> -- Steve
>
--
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/