[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f4316f5a-eccd-ec96-3f7b-85900f5f3124@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:57:52 +0200
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mark Simmons <msimmons@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Unthrottle PI boosted threads while
enqueuing
On 9/18/20 8:00 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 16/09/20 09:06, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> stress-ng has a test (stress-ng --cyclic) that creates a set of threads
>> under SCHED_DEADLINE with the following parameters:
>>
>> dl_runtime = 10000 (10 us)
>> dl_deadline = 100000 (100 us)
>> dl_period = 100000 (100 us)
>>
>> These parameters are very aggressive. When using a system without HRTICK
>> set, these threads can easily execute longer than the dl_runtime because
>> the throttling happens with 1/HZ resolution.
>>
>> During the main part of the test, the system works just fine because
>> the workload does not try to run over the 10 us. The problem happens at
>> the end of the test, on the exit() path. During exit(), the threads need
>> to do some cleanups that require real-time mutex locks, mainly those
>> related to memory management, resulting in this scenario:
>>
>> Note: locks are rt_mutexes...
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TASK A: TASK B: TASK C:
>> activation
>> activation
>> activation
>>
>> lock(a): OK! lock(b): OK!
>> <overrun runtime>
>> lock(a)
>> -> block (task A owns it)
>> -> self notice/set throttled
>> +--< -> arm replenished timer
>> | switch-out
>> | lock(b)
>> | -> <C prio > B prio>
>> | -> boost TASK B
>> | unlock(a) switch-out
>> | -> handle lock a to B
>> | -> wakeup(B)
>> | -> B is throttled:
>> | -> do not enqueue
>> | switch-out
>> |
>> |
>> +---------------------> replenishment timer
>> -> TASK B is boosted:
>> -> do not enqueue
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> BOOM: TASK B is runnable but !enqueued, holding TASK C: the system
>> crashes with hung task C.
>>
>> This problem is avoided by removing the throttle state from the boosted
>> thread while boosting it (by TASK A in the example above), allowing it to
>> be queued and run boosted.
>>
>> The next replenishment will take care of the runtime overrun, pushing
>> the deadline further away. See the "while (dl_se->runtime <= 0)" on
>> replenish_dl_entity() for more information.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
>> Reported-by: Mark Simmons <msimmons@...hat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
>> Tested-by: Mark Simmons <msimmons@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
>> Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>
>> ---
>
> Thanks for this fix.
>
> Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
This is a gentle ping... [we are facing this bug in practice :-(].
-- Daniel
> Best,
> Juri
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists