| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200224061004.GH28029@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:40:04 +0530
From: Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] sched/rt: Better manage pushing unfit tasks on
wakeup
Hi Qais,
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 06:40:00PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On wakeup, if a task doesn't fit the CPU it is running on (due to its
> uclamp_min value), then we trigger the push mechanism to try to find a
> more suitable CPU.
>
> But the logic introduced in commit 804d402fb6f6 ("sched/rt: Make RT capacity-aware")
> was incomplete. If the rq isn't overloaded, push_rt_task() will bail out
> immediately.
>
> Steve suggested using the overloaded flag to force the push, but as
> Pavan pointed out this could cause a lot of unnecessary IPIs in case of
> HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI.
>
> To still allow pushing unfitting task ASAP, but without causing a lot of
> disturbance in case this is not possible (no available CPU that is
> running at a lower priority level), introduce a new rt_nr_unfitting in
> struct rt_rq and use that to manage how hard we try to push an unfitting
> task in push_rt_task().
>
The 1-4 patches in this series are looking good to me.
At this point (after applying 4 patches), removing rt_task_fits_capacity()
check from switched_to_rt() and task_woken_rt() would be sufficient, I think.
i.e no changes to push/pull logic and we have a fallback for wakeup time cpu
selection.
It is not clear what you meant by pushing the unfit task ASAP. A running
task on a little CPU can not be pushed to BIG CPU. That would require waking
a migration task to do the migration. The other problem is if CPU has more
than 2 tasks (excluding running task) which one to be pushed. Are you trying
to solve this problem?
> If the task is pinned to a single CPU, we won't inc rt_nr_unfitting,
> hence skipping the push in this case.
>
> Also there's no need to force a push on switched_to_rt(). On the next
> wakeup we should handle it which should suffice.
>
> Fixes: 804d402fb6f6 ("sched/rt: Make RT capacity-aware")
> LINK: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200221080701.GF28029@codeaurora.org/
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 3 ++
> 2 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 9ae8a9fabe8b..b35e49cdafcc 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ int sched_rr_timeslice = RR_TIMESLICE;
> int sysctl_sched_rr_timeslice = (MSEC_PER_SEC / HZ) * RR_TIMESLICE;
>
> static int do_sched_rt_period_timer(struct rt_bandwidth *rt_b, int overrun);
> +static bool rt_task_fits_capacity(struct task_struct *p, int cpu);
>
> struct rt_bandwidth def_rt_bandwidth;
>
> @@ -313,6 +314,27 @@ static void update_rt_migration(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> }
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> +static void inc_rt_unfit_tasks(struct task_struct *p, struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> +{
> + int cpu = cpu_of(rq_of_rt_rq(rt_rq));
> +
> + if (!rt_task_fits_capacity(p, cpu))
> + rt_rq->rt_nr_unfit++;
> +}
> +
> +static void dec_rt_unfit_tasks(struct task_struct *p, struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> +{
> + int cpu = cpu_of(rq_of_rt_rq(rt_rq));
> +
> + if (!rt_task_fits_capacity(p, cpu))
> + rt_rq->rt_nr_unfit--;
> +}
> +#else
> +static void inc_rt_unfit_tasks(struct task_struct *p, struct rt_rq *rt_rq) {}
> +static void dec_rt_unfit_tasks(struct task_struct *p, struct rt_rq *rt_rq) {}
> +#endif
> +
> static void inc_rt_migration(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> {
> struct task_struct *p;
> @@ -324,9 +346,17 @@ static void inc_rt_migration(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> rt_rq = &rq_of_rt_rq(rt_rq)->rt;
>
> rt_rq->rt_nr_total++;
> - if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
> + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1) {
> rt_rq->rt_nr_migratory++;
>
> + /*
> + * The task is dequeued and queue again on set_cpus_allowed(),
> + * so we can't end up with a unbalanced inc/dec if
> + * p->nr_cpus_allowed has changed.
> + */
> + inc_rt_unfit_tasks(p, rt_rq);
> + }
> +
> update_rt_migration(rt_rq);
> }
>
> @@ -341,12 +371,29 @@ static void dec_rt_migration(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> rt_rq = &rq_of_rt_rq(rt_rq)->rt;
>
> rt_rq->rt_nr_total--;
> - if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
> + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1) {
> rt_rq->rt_nr_migratory--;
>
> + /*
> + * The task is dequeued and queue again on set_cpus_allowed(),
> + * so we can't end up with a unbalanced inc/dec if
> + * p->nr_cpus_allowed has changed.
> + */
> + dec_rt_unfit_tasks(p, rt_rq);
> + }
> +
When uclamp values are changed via cgroups or global sysctl knobs, we don't
enqueue/dequeue all tasks similar to sched_setattr. So a task that was fit
at enqueue time can become unfit if uclamp values are changed in between.
> update_rt_migration(rt_rq);
> }
>
> +static inline int has_unfit_tasks(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> + return rq->rt.rt_nr_unfit;
> +#else
> + return 0;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> static inline int has_pushable_tasks(struct rq *rq)
> {
> return !plist_head_empty(&rq->rt.pushable_tasks);
> @@ -1862,8 +1909,9 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
> struct task_struct *next_task;
> struct rq *lowest_rq;
> int ret = 0;
> + bool fit;
>
> - if (!rq->rt.overloaded)
> + if (!rq->rt.overloaded && !has_unfit_tasks(rq))
> return 0;
>
When there is one unfit RT task, are we setting overloaded anywhere due
to fitness check? I don't see that in this patch.
Even if we set overload condition, we can't push the running task.
> next_task = pick_next_pushable_task(rq);
> @@ -1874,12 +1922,21 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
> if (WARN_ON(next_task == rq->curr))
> return 0;
>
> + /*
> + * The rq could be overloaded because it has unfitting task, if that's
> + * the case then we need to try harder to find a better fitting CPU.
> + */
> + fit = rt_task_fits_capacity(next_task, cpu_of(rq));
> +
> /*
> * It's possible that the next_task slipped in of
> * higher priority than current. If that's the case
> * just reschedule current.
> + *
> + * Unless next_task doesn't fit in this cpu, then continue with the
> + * attempt to push it.
> */
> - if (unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio)) {
> + if (unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio && fit)) {
> resched_curr(rq);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1922,6 +1979,35 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
> goto retry;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Bail out if the task doesn't fit on either CPUs.
> + *
> + * Unless..
> + *
> + * * The rq is already overloaded, then push anyway.
> + *
> + * * The priority of next_task is higher than current, then we
> + * resched_curr(). We forced skipping this condition above if the rq
> + * was overloaded but the task didn't fit.
> + */
> + if (!fit && !rt_task_fits_capacity(next_task, cpu_of(lowest_rq))) {
> +
> + /*
> + * If the system wasn't overloaded, then pretend we didn't run.
> + */
> + if (!rq->rt.overloaded)
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the system is overloaded, we forced skipping this
> + * condition, so re-evaluate it.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio)) {
> + resched_curr(rq);
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> + }
> +
> deactivate_task(rq, next_task, 0);
> set_task_cpu(next_task, lowest_rq->cpu);
> activate_task(lowest_rq, next_task, 0);
> @@ -1929,6 +2015,7 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
>
> resched_curr(lowest_rq);
>
> +out_unlock:
> double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
>
> out:
> @@ -2297,10 +2384,7 @@ static void switched_to_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> */
> if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && rq->curr != p) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> - bool need_to_push = rq->rt.overloaded ||
> - !rt_task_fits_capacity(p, cpu_of(rq));
> -
> - if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1 && need_to_push)
> + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1 && rq->rt.overloaded)
> rt_queue_push_tasks(rq);
Right. What about the check in task_woken_rt()? We should remove it
from there too.
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> if (p->prio < rq->curr->prio && cpu_online(cpu_of(rq)))
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 1a88dc8ad11b..7dea81ccd49a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -603,6 +603,9 @@ struct rt_rq {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> unsigned long rt_nr_migratory;
> unsigned long rt_nr_total;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> + unsigned long rt_nr_unfit;
> +#endif
> int overloaded;
> struct plist_head pushable_tasks;
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists