[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <670a0d54-e398-4b1f-8a6e-90784e2fdf89@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 12:59:54 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Adam Li <adamli@...amperecomputing.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>, <bsegall@...gle.com>,
<mgorman@...e.de>, <vschneid@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<patches@...erecomputing.com>, <cl@...ux.com>, <christian.loehle@....com>,
<vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/fair: Fix warning if NEXT_BUDDY enabled
Hello Adam,
On 11/27/2024 11:26 AM, Adam Li wrote:
> Enabling NEXT_BUDDY triggers warning, and rcu stall:
>
> [ 124.977300] cfs_rq->next->sched_delayed
I could reproduce this with a run of "perf bench sched messaging" but
given that we hit this warning, it also means that either
set_next_buddy() has incorrectly set a delayed entity as next buddy, or
clear_next_buddy() did not clear a delayed entity.
I also see PSI splats like:
psi: inconsistent task state! task=2524:kworker/u1028:2 cpu=154 psi_flags=10 clear=14 set=0
but the PSI flags it has set "(TSK_MEMSTALL_RUNNING | TSK_MEMSTALL)" and
the flags it is trying to clear
"(TSK_MEMSTALL_RUNNING | TSK_MEMSTALL | TSK_RUNNING)" seem to be only
possible if you have picked a dequeued entity for running before its
wakeup, which is also perhaps why the "nr_running" computation goes awry
and pick_eevdf() returns NULL (which it should never since
pick_next_entity() is only called when rq->cfs.nr_running is > 0)
> [ 124.977310] WARNING: CPU: 51 PID: 2150 at kernel/sched/fair.c:5621 pick_task_fair+0x130/0x150
> [ 125.049547] CPU: 51 UID: 0 PID: 2150 Comm: kworker/51:1 Tainted: G E 6.12.0.adam+ #1
> <snip>
> [ 125.163561] Call trace:
> [ 125.165996] pick_task_fair+0x130/0x150 (P)
> [ 125.170167] pick_task_fair+0x130/0x150 (L)
> [ 125.174338] pick_next_task_fair+0x48/0x3c0
> [ 125.178512] __pick_next_task+0x4c/0x220
> [ 125.182426] pick_next_task+0x44/0x980
> [ 125.186163] __schedule+0x3d0/0x628
> [ 125.189645] schedule+0x3c/0xe0
> [ 125.192776] worker_thread+0x1a4/0x368
> [ 125.196516] kthread+0xfc/0x110
> [ 125.199647] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> [ 125.203213] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> <snip>
> [ 211.151849] rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> [ 211.159759] rcu: (detected by 141, t=15003 jiffies, g=5629, q=26516 ncpus=384)
> <snip>
>
> Do not set next buddy if sched_delayed is set.
>
> Fixes: 152e11f6df29 ("sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue")
> Signed-off-by: Adam Li <adamli@...amperecomputing.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index fbdca89c677f..cd1188b7f3df 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8748,6 +8748,8 @@ static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
> return;
> if (se_is_idle(se))
> return;
> + if (se->sched_delayed)
> + return;
I tried to put a SCHED_WARN_ON() here to track where this comes from and
seems like it is usually from attach_task() in the load balancing path
pulling a delayed task which is set as the next buddy in
check_preempt_wakeup_fair()
Can you please try the following diff instead of the first two patches
and see if you still hit these warnings, stalls, and pick_eevdf()
returning NULL?
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ff7cae9274c5..61e74eb5af22 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5478,6 +5478,7 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
bool sleep = flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
update_curr(cfs_rq);
+ clear_buddies(cfs_rq, se);
if (flags & DEQUEUE_DELAYED) {
SCHED_WARN_ON(!se->sched_delayed);
@@ -5520,8 +5521,6 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
update_stats_dequeue_fair(cfs_rq, se, flags);
- clear_buddies(cfs_rq, se);
-
update_entity_lag(cfs_rq, se);
if (sched_feat(PLACE_REL_DEADLINE) && !sleep) {
se->deadline -= se->vruntime;
@@ -8767,7 +8766,7 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int
if (unlikely(throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq_of(pse))))
return;
- if (sched_feat(NEXT_BUDDY) && !(wake_flags & WF_FORK)) {
+ if (sched_feat(NEXT_BUDDY) && !(wake_flags & WF_FORK) && !pse->sched_delayed) {
set_next_buddy(pse);
}
--
If you are still encountering pick_eevdf() returning NULL, there could
be a larger issues (with eligibility computation, etc.) that the second
patch can hide which can lead to bigger problems later. Thank you.
> cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
> }
> }
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists