[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201027141911.GC771372@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:19:11 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <derkling@...gle.com>,
benbjiang(蒋彪) <benbjiang@...cent.com>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
"Hyser,Chris" <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Ning, Hongyu" <hongyu.ning@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 -tip 02/26] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task()
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 08:27:16AM -0400, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/24/20 7:10 AM, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 93a3b874077d..4cae5ac48b60 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -4428,12 +4428,14 @@ pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> > > sched_entity *curr)
> > > se = second;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (cfs_rq->next && wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->next, left) <
> > > 1) {
> > > + if (left && cfs_rq->next &&
> > > + wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->next, left) < 1) {
> > > /*
> > > * Someone really wants this to run. If it's not unfair,
> > > run it.
> > > */
> > > se = cfs_rq->next;
> > > - } else if (cfs_rq->last && wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->last,
> > > left) < 1) {
> > > + } else if (left && cfs_rq->last &&
> > > + wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->last, left) < 1) {
> > > /*
> > > * Prefer last buddy, try to return the CPU to a
> > > preempted task.
> > >
> > >
> > > There reason for left being NULL needs to be investigated. This was
> > > there from v1 and we did not yet get to it. I shall try to debug later
> > > this week.
> >
> > Thinking more about it and looking at the crash, I think that
> > 'left == NULL' can happen in pick_next_entity for core scheduling.
> > If a cfs_rq has only one task that is running, then it will be
> > dequeued and 'left = __pick_first_entity()' will be NULL as the
> > cfs_rq will be empty. This would not happen outside of coresched
> > because we never call pick_tack() before put_prev_task() which
> > will enqueue the task back.
> >
> > With core scheduling, a cpu can call pick_task() for its sibling while
> > the sibling is still running the active task and put_prev_task has yet
> > not been called. This can result in 'left == NULL'.
>
> Quite correct. Hurmph.. the reason we do this is because... we do the
> update_curr() the wrong way around. And I can't seem to remember why we
> do that (it was in my original patches).
>
> Something like so seems the obvious thing to do, but I can't seem to
> remember why we're not doing it :-(
The code below is just a refactor and not a functional change though, right?
i.e. pick_next_entity() is already returning se = curr, if se == NULL.
But the advantage of your refactor is it doesn't crash the kernel.
So your change appears safe to me unless I missed something.
thanks,
- Joel
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6950,15 +6950,10 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_task_fai
> do {
> struct sched_entity *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
>
> - se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, NULL);
> + if (curr && curr->on_rq)
> + update_curr(cfs_rq);
>
> - if (curr) {
> - if (se && curr->on_rq)
> - update_curr(cfs_rq);
> -
> - if (!se || entity_before(curr, se))
> - se = curr;
> - }
> + se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, curr);
>
> cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
> } while (cfs_rq);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists