[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23e44dd5-5229-ac16-5801-3b74f013b7f3@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 17:27:56 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, qais.yousef@....com,
rickyiu@...gle.com, wvw@...gle.com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
xuewen.yan94@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched: Fix UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE setting
On 11/06/2021 09:25, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 10 Jun 2021 at 21:05:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 03:13:04PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>> The UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE flag is set on a runqueue when dequeueing the last
>>> active task to maintain the last uclamp.max and prevent blocked util
>>> from suddenly becoming visible.
>>>
>>> However, there is an asymmetry in how the flag is set and cleared which
>>> can lead to having the flag set whilst there are active tasks on the rq.
>>> Specifically, the flag is cleared in the uclamp_rq_inc() path, which is
>>> called at enqueue time, but set in uclamp_rq_dec_id() which is called
>>> both when dequeueing a task _and_ in the update_uclamp_active() path. As
>>> a result, when both uclamp_rq_{dec,ind}_id() are called from
>>> update_uclamp_active(), the flag ends up being set but not cleared,
>>> hence leaving the runqueue in a broken state.
>>>
>>> Fix this by setting the flag in the uclamp_rq_inc_id() path to ensure
>>> things remain symmetrical.
>>
>> The code you moved is neither in uclamp_rq_inc_id(), although
>> uclamp_idle_reset() is called from there
>
> Yep, that is what I was trying to say.
>
>> nor does it _set_ the flag.
>
> Ahem. That I don't have a good excuse for ...
(A) dequeue -> set
(1) dequeue_task() -> uclamp_rq_dec() ->
(2) cpu_util_update_eff() -> ... -> uclamp_update_active() ->
uclamp_rq_dec_id()
uclamp_rq_max_value()
/* No tasks -- default clamp values */
uclamp_idle_value() {
if (clamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX)
rq->uclamp_flags |= UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE; <-- set
}
---
(B) enqueue -> clear
(1) enqueue_task() ->
uclamp_rq_inc() {
(2) cpu_util_update_eff() -> ... -> uclamp_update_active() ->
uclamp_rq_inc_id() {
uclamp_idle_reset() {
<-- new clear
} ^
} |
|
if (rq->uclamp_flags & UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE) |
rq->uclamp_flags &= ~UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE; <-- old clear
}
---
uclamp_update_active()
if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active) {
uclamp_rq_dec_id() <-- (A2)
uclamp_rq_inc_id() <-- (B2)
}
Is this existing asymmetry in setting the flag but not clearing it in
uclamp_update_active() the only issue this patch fixes?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists