Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:53:38 +0300
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To:	bsegall@...gle.com
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: fix sudden expiration of cfq quota in
 put_prev_task()

On 07.04.2015 01:45, bsegall@...gle.com wrote:
> Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru> writes:
>
>> Pick_next_task_fair() must be sure that here is at least one runnable
>> task before calling put_prev_task(), but put_prev_task() can expire
>> last remains of cfs quota and throttle all currently runnable tasks.
>> As a result pick_next_task_fair() cannot find next task and crashes.
>>
>> This patch leaves 1 in ->runtime_remaining when current assignation
>> expires and tries to refill it right after that. In the worst case
>> task will be scheduled once and throttled at the end of slice.
>>
>
> I don't think expire_cfs_rq_runtime is the problem. What I believe
> happens is this:
>
> /prev/some_task is running, calls schedule() with nr_running == 2.
> pick_next's first do/while loop does update_curr(/) and picks /next, and
> the next iteration just sees check_cfs_rq_runtime(/next), and thus does
> goto simple. However, there is now only /prev/some_task runnable, and it
> hasn't checked the entire prev hierarchy for throttling, thus leading to
> the crash.
>
> This would require that check_cfs_rq_runtime(/next) return true despite
> being on_rq though, which iirc is not supposed to happen (note that we
> do not call update_curr(/next), and it would do nothing if we did,
> because /next isn't part of the current thread's hierarchy). However,
> this /can/ happen if runtime has just been (re)enabled on /next, because
> tg_set_cfs_bandwidth sets runtime_remaining to 0, not 1.

Yeah, this seems possible too.

> The idea was that each rq would grab runtime when they were scheduled
> (pick_next_task_fair didn't ever look at throttling info), so this was
> fine with the old code, but is a problem now. I think it would be
> sufficient to just initialize to 1 in tg_set_cfs_bandwidth. The arguably
> more precise option would be to only check_cfs_rq_runtime if
> cfs_rq->curr is set, but the code is slightly less pretty.

Probably this code should call something like
account_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq, 0);

>
> Could you check this patch to see if it works (or the trivial
> tg_set_bandwidth runtime_remaining = 1 patch)?

I'm not sure that I'll see this bug again: we're replacing this setup 
with something different.

>
> ---8<----->8---
>
>  From f12fa8e981bf1d87cbbc30951bdf27e70c803e25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 15:28:10 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] sched: prevent throttle in early pick_next_task_fair
>
> The first call to check_cfs_rq_runtime in pick_next_task_fair is only supposed
> to trigger when cfs_rq is still an ancestor of prev. However, it was able to
> trigger on tgs that had just had bandwidth toggled, because tg_set_cfs_bandwidth
> set runtime_remaining to 0, and check_cfs_rq_runtime doesn't check the global
> pool.
>
> Fix this by only calling check_cfs_rq_runtime if we are still in prev's
> ancestry, as evidenced by cfs_rq->curr.
>
> Reported-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
> ---
>   kernel/sched/fair.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ee595ef..5cb52e9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5038,18 +5038,21 @@ again:
>   		 * entity, update_curr() will update its vruntime, otherwise
>   		 * forget we've ever seen it.
>   		 */
> -		if (curr && curr->on_rq)
> -			update_curr(cfs_rq);
> -		else
> -			curr = NULL;
> +		if (curr) {
> +			if (curr->on_rq)
> +				update_curr(cfs_rq);
> +			else
> +				curr = NULL;
>
> -		/*
> -		 * This call to check_cfs_rq_runtime() will do the throttle and
> -		 * dequeue its entity in the parent(s). Therefore the 'simple'
> -		 * nr_running test will indeed be correct.
> -		 */
> -		if (unlikely(check_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq)))
> -			goto simple;
> +			/*
> +			 * This call to check_cfs_rq_runtime() will do the
> +			 * throttle and dequeue its entity in the parent(s).
> +			 * Therefore the 'simple' nr_running test will indeed
> +			 * be correct.
> +			 */
> +			if (unlikely(check_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq)))
> +				goto simple;
> +		}
>
>   		se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, curr);
>   		cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
>


-- 
Konstantin
--
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