[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200824133820.GA31355@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:08:20 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Wetp Zhang <wetp.zy@...ux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix wrong cpu selecting from isolated domain
* Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com> [2020-08-24 20:30:19]:
> We've met problems that occasionally tasks with full cpumask
> (e.g. by putting it into a cpuset or setting to full affinity)
> were migrated to our isolated cpus in production environment.
>
> After some analysis, we found that it is due to the current
> select_idle_smt() not considering the sched_domain mask.
>
> Fix it by checking the valid domain mask in select_idle_smt().
>
> Fixes: 10e2f1acd010 ("sched/core: Rewrite and improve select_idle_siblings())
> Reported-by: Wetp Zhang <wetp.zy@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 1a68a05..fa942c4 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6075,7 +6075,7 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int
> /*
> * Scan the local SMT mask for idle CPUs.
> */
> -static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
> +static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target)
> {
> int cpu;
>
> @@ -6083,7 +6083,8 @@ static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, int target)
> return -1;
>
> for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target)) {
> - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr) ||
> + !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
> continue;
Don't think this is right thing to do. What if this task had set a cpumask
that doesn't cover all the cpus in this sched_domain_span(sd)
cpu_smt_mask(target) would already limit to the sched_domain_span(sd) so I
am not sure how this can help?
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists