linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Don't count nr_running twice for dl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a8037d19-bccc-0567-8e00-8692b3787f7c@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 16:37:20 +0800
From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
To: <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
	<mingo@...hat.com>, <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <bsegall@...gle.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>,
	<vschneid@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
	<prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Don't count nr_running twice for
 dl_server proxy tasks

Hi Peter,

On 2025/6/27 16:05, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 27/06/25 11:54, Yicong Yang wrote:
>> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
>>
>> On CPU offline the kernel stalled with below call trace:
>>
>>   INFO: task kworker/0:1:11 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>         Tainted: G           O        6.15.0-rc4+ #1
>>   "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>   task:kworker/0:1     state:D stack:0     pid:11    tgid:11    ppid:2   task_flags:0x4208060 flags:0x00000008
>>   Workqueue: events vmstat_shepherd
>>   Call trace:
>>    __switch_to+0x118/0x188 (T)
>>    __schedule+0x31c/0x1300
>>    schedule+0x3c/0x120
>>    percpu_rwsem_wait+0x12c/0x1b0
>>    __percpu_down_read+0x78/0x188
>>    cpus_read_lock+0xc4/0xe8
>>    vmstat_shepherd+0x30/0x138
>>    process_one_work+0x154/0x3c8
>>    worker_thread+0x2e8/0x400
>>    kthread+0x154/0x230
>>    ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>>   INFO: task kworker/1:1:116 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>         Tainted: G           O        6.15.0-rc4+ #1
>>   "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>   task:kworker/1:1     state:D stack:0     pid:116   tgid:116   ppid:2   task_flags:0x4208060 flags:0x00000008
>>   Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>>   Call trace:
>>    __switch_to+0x118/0x188 (T)
>>    __schedule+0x31c/0x1300
>>    schedule+0x3c/0x120
>>    schedule_timeout+0x10c/0x120
>>    __wait_for_common+0xc4/0x1b8
>>    wait_for_completion+0x28/0x40
>>    cpuhp_kick_ap_work+0x114/0x3c8
>>    _cpu_down+0x130/0x4b8
>>    __cpu_down_maps_locked+0x20/0x38
>>    work_for_cpu_fn+0x24/0x40
>>    process_one_work+0x154/0x3c8
>>    worker_thread+0x2e8/0x400
>>    kthread+0x154/0x230
>>    ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>>
>> cpuhp hold the cpu hotplug lock endless and stalled vmstat_shepherd.
>> This is because we count nr_running twice on cpuhp enqueuing and failed
>> the wait condition of cpuhp:
>>
>> enqueue_task_fair() // pick cpuhp from idle, rq->nr_running = 0
>>   dl_server_start()
>>     [...]
>>     add_nr_running() // rq->nr_running = 1
>>   add_nr_running() // rq->nr_running = 2
>> [switch to cpuhp, waiting on balance_hotplug_wait()]
>> rcuwait_wait_event(rq->nr_running == 1 && ...) // failed, rq->nr_running=2
>>   schedule() // wait again
>>
>> This doesn't make sense to count one single task twice on
>> rq->nr_running. So fix this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 8 ++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> index ad45a8fea245..59fb178762ee 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>> @@ -1894,7 +1894,9 @@ void inc_dl_tasks(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
>>  	u64 deadline = dl_se->deadline;
>>  
>>  	dl_rq->dl_nr_running++;
>> -	add_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
>> +
>> +	if (!dl_server(dl_se))
>> +		add_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
>>  
>>  	inc_dl_deadline(dl_rq, deadline);
>>  }
>> @@ -1904,7 +1906,9 @@ void dec_dl_tasks(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
>>  {
>>  	WARN_ON(!dl_rq->dl_nr_running);
>>  	dl_rq->dl_nr_running--;
>> -	sub_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
>> +
>> +	if (!dl_server(dl_se))
>> +		sub_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
>>  
>>  	dec_dl_deadline(dl_rq, dl_se->deadline);
>>  }
> 
> This seems to make sense to me. Thanks for the analysis and the patch.
> 
> Peter, what do you think?
> 

does this also make sense to you? or any other solutions you'd like me to try?

thanks.