[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87iktli7o6.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:21:13 -0700
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, paulmck@...nel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: warn for high latency with
TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 10/9/24 22:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> resched_latency_warn() now also warns if TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY is set
>> without rescheduling for more than the latency_warn_ms period.
>>
>
> I am bit confused here. Why do we need to warn if LAZY is set for a long time?
>
> If lazy set, the subsequent tick, it would be set to upgraded to NEED_RESCHED.
>
> Since the value of latency_warn_ms=100ms, that means even on system with HZ=100,
> that means 10 ticks before that warning would be printed no?
That's a fair point. However, the assumption there is that there are no
bugs in upgrade on tick or that there's no situation in which the tick
is off for a prolonged period.
Ankur
> IIUC, the changelog c006fac556e40 ("sched: Warn on long periods of pending
> need_resched") has the concern of need_resched set but if it is non-preemptible
> kernel it would spend a lot of time in kernel mode. In that case print a
> warning.
>
> If someone enables Lazy, that means it is preemptible and probably this whole
> notion of resched_latency_warn doesn't apply to lazy. Please correct me if i am
> not understanding this correctly.
>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Peter Ziljstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
>> kernel/sched/debug.c | 7 +++++--
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 694bfcf153cb..1229766b704e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -5571,7 +5571,7 @@ static u64 cpu_resched_latency(struct rq *rq)
>> if (sysctl_resched_latency_warn_once && warned_once)
>> return 0;
>> - if (!need_resched() || !latency_warn_ms)
>> + if ((!need_resched() && !tif_need_resched_lazy()) || !latency_warn_ms)
>> return 0;
>> if (system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING)
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/debug.c b/kernel/sched/debug.c
>> index 9abcc6ead11b..f0d551ba64bb 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/debug.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/debug.c
>> @@ -1293,9 +1293,12 @@ void proc_sched_set_task(struct task_struct *p)
>> void resched_latency_warn(int cpu, u64 latency)
>> {
>> static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(latency_check_ratelimit, 60 * 60 * HZ, 1);
>> + char *nr;
>> +
>> + nr = tif_need_resched() ? "need_resched" : "need_resched_lazy";
>> WARN(__ratelimit(&latency_check_ratelimit),
>> - "sched: CPU %d need_resched set for > %llu ns (%d ticks) "
>> + "sched: CPU %d %s set for > %llu ns (%d ticks) "
>> "without schedule\n",
>> - cpu, latency, cpu_rq(cpu)->ticks_without_resched);
>> + cpu, nr, latency, cpu_rq(cpu)->ticks_without_resched);
>> }
--
ankur
Powered by blists - more mailing lists