[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dcd2fa21-7fef-d648-017d-9d42d11793e0@google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:54:25 -0700
From: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@...gle.com>
To: Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <Patrick.Bellasi@....com>,
Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: vruntime should normalize when switching from
fair
On 08/17/2018 11:27 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> From: John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>
>
> When rt_mutex_setprio changes a task's scheduling class to RT,
> we're seeing cases where the task's vruntime is not updated
> correctly upon return to the fair class.
> Specifically, the following is being observed:
> - task is deactivated while still in the fair class
> - task is boosted to RT via rt_mutex_setprio, which changes
> the task to RT and calls check_class_changed.
> - check_class_changed leads to detach_task_cfs_rq, at which point
> the vruntime_normalized check sees that the task's state is TASK_WAKING,
> which results in skipping the subtraction of the rq's min_vruntime
> from the task's vruntime
> - later, when the prio is deboosted and the task is moved back
> to the fair class, the fair rq's min_vruntime is added to
> the task's vruntime, even though it wasn't subtracted earlier.
> The immediate result is inflation of the task's vruntime, giving
> it lower priority (starving it if there's enough available work).
> The longer-term effect is inflation of all vruntimes because the
> task's vruntime becomes the rq's min_vruntime when the higher
> priority tasks go idle. That leads to a vicious cycle, where
> the vruntime inflation repeatedly doubled.
>
> The change here is to detect when vruntime_normalized is being
> called when the task is waking but is waking in another class,
> and to conclude that this is a case where vruntime has not
> been normalized.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index b39fb596f6c1..14011d7929d8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9638,7 +9638,8 @@ static inline bool vruntime_normalized(struct task_struct *p)
> * - A task which has been woken up by try_to_wake_up() and
> * waiting for actually being woken up by sched_ttwu_pending().
> */
> - if (!se->sum_exec_runtime || p->state == TASK_WAKING)
> + if (!se->sum_exec_runtime ||
> + (p->state == TASK_WAKING && p->sched_class == &fair_sched_class))
> return true;
>
> return false;
The normalization of vruntime used to exist in task_waking but it was
removed and the normalization was moved into migrate_task_rq_fair. The
reasoning being that task_waking_fair was only hit when a task is queued
onto a different core and migrate_task_rq_fair should do the same work.
However, we're finding that there's one case which migrate_task_rq_fair
doesn't hit: that being the case where rt_mutex_setprio changes a task's
scheduling class to RT when its scheduled out. The task never hits
migrate_task_rq_fair because it is switched to RT and migrates as an RT
task. Because of this we're getting an unbounded addition of
min_vruntime when the task is re-attached to the CFS runqueue when it
loses the inherited priority. The patch above works because now the
kernel specifically checks for this case and normalizes accordingly.
Here's the patch I was talking about:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/677689/. In our testing we were
seeing vruntimes nearly double every time after rt_mutex_setprio boosts
the task to RT.
Signed-off-by: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@...gle.com>
Tested-by: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists