[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231009142740.GA437913@lorien.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 10:27:40 -0400
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"bristot@...hat.com" <bristot@...hat.com>,
"chris.hyser@...cle.com" <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"joshdon@...gle.com" <joshdon@...gle.com>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
"kprateek.nayak@....com" <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"patrick.bellasi@...bug.net" <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
"qperret@...gle.com" <qperret@...gle.com>,
"qyousef@...alina.io" <qyousef@...alina.io>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"timj@....org" <timj@....org>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"youssefesmat@...omium.org" <youssefesmat@...omium.org>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix pick_eevdf to always find the correct se
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 02:42:10PM +0800 Chen Yu wrote:
> Hi Biju,
>
> On 2023-10-07 at 06:26:05 +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > Hi Chen Yu,
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix pick_eevdf to always find the correct
> > > se
> > >
> > > On 2023-10-06 at 21:24:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 05:55:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And yeah, min_deadline is hosed somehow.
> > > > >
> > > > > migration/28-185 [028] d..2. 70.264274: validate_cfs_rq: --- /
> > > > > migration/28-185 [028] d..2. 70.264277: __print_se:
> > > ffff88845cf48080 w: 1024 ve: -58857638 lag: 870381 vd: -55861854 vmd: -
> > > 66302085 E (11372/tr)
> > > > > migration/28-185 [028] d..2. 70.264280: __print_se:
> > > ffff88810d165800 w: 25 ve: -80323686 lag: 22336429 vd: -41496434 vmd: -
> > > 66302085 E (-1//autogroup-31)
> > > > > migration/28-185 [028] d..2. 70.264282: __print_se:
> > > ffff888108379000 w: 25 ve: 0 lag: -57987257 vd: 114632828 vmd: 114632828 N
> > > (-1//autogroup-33)
> > > > > migration/28-185 [028] d..2. 70.264283: validate_cfs_rq:
> > > min_deadline: -55861854 avg_vruntime: -62278313462 / 1074 = -57987256
> > > > >
> > > > > I need to go make dinner (kids hungry), but I'll see if I can figure
> > > > > out how this happens...
> > > >
> > > > *sigh*, does the below help?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index
> > > > 04fbcbda97d5..6a670f119efa 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > @@ -3632,6 +3747,7 @@ static void reweight_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> > > struct sched_entity *se,
> > > > */
> > > > deadline = div_s64(deadline * old_weight, weight);
> > > > se->deadline = se->vruntime + deadline;
> > > > + min_deadline_cb_propagate(&se->run_node, NULL);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >
> > > Is it because without this patch, the se->deadline is not always synced
> > > with se->min_deadline, then in pick_eevdf() the following condition could
> > > not be met, thus we get a NULL candidate and has to pick the leftmost one?
> > > if (se->deadline == se->min_deadline)
> > >
> > > Regarding the circular locking warning triggered by printk, does it mean we
> > > should not get a NULL candidate from __pick_eevdf() in theory? And besides,
> > > we should not use printk with rq lock hold?
> >
> > Is it not a useful error log? At least from the initial report Marek Szyprowski doesn't see "EEVDF scheduling fail, picking leftmost" but seen only warning triggered by this in the logs.
> >
>
> Yes, it is a useful log. I was trying to figure out the safe scenario to use
> printk.
>
You should not use printk with a rq lock held as some console implementations
(framebuffer etc) call schedule_work() which loops back into the scheduler
and bad things happen.
Some places in the scheduler use printk_deferred() when needed.
I think this will be better when the RT printk stuff is fully merged.
Cheers,
Phil
> thanks,
> Chenyu
>
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists