Re: [PATCH v8 -tip 02/26] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task()

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vineeth Pillai <viremana@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	"Joel Fernandes" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	"Nishanth Aravamudan" <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
	"Julien Desfossez" <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
	"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
	"Aubrey Li" <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
	"Thomas Glexiner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Greg Kerr" <kerrnel@google.com>, "Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>,
	"Valentin Schneider" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	"Pawan Gupta" <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	vineeth@bitbyteword.org, "Chen Yu" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
	"Christian Brauner" <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	"Agata Gruza" <agata.gruza@intel.com>,
	"Antonio Gomez Iglesias" <antonio.gomez.iglesias@intel.com>,
	graf@amazon.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
	"Dario Faggioli" <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
	"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Patrick Bellasi" <derkling@google.com>,
	"benbjiang(蒋彪)" <benbjiang@tencent.com>,
	"Alexandre Chartre" <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
	James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, OWeisse@umich.edu,
	"Dhaval Giani" <dhaval.giani@oracle.com>,
	"Junaid Shahid" <junaids@google.com>,
	"Jesse Barnes" <jsbarnes@google.com>,
	"Hyser,Chris" <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
	"Ning, Hongyu" <hongyu.ning@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 -tip 02/26] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task()
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:01:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201026090131.GE2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8230ada7-839f-2335-9a55-b09f6a813e91@linux.microsoft.com>

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 08:27:16AM -0400, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/24/20 7:10 AM, Vineeth Pillai wrote:
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 93a3b874077d..4cae5ac48b60 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4428,12 +4428,14 @@ pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> > sched_entity *curr)
> >                         se = second;
> >         }
> > 
> > -       if (cfs_rq->next && wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->next, left) <
> > 1) {
> > +       if (left && cfs_rq->next &&
> > +                       wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->next, left) < 1) {
> >                 /*
> >                  * Someone really wants this to run. If it's not unfair,
> > run it.
> >                  */
> >                 se = cfs_rq->next;
> > -       } else if (cfs_rq->last && wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->last,
> > left) < 1) {
> > +       } else if (left && cfs_rq->last &&
> > +                       wakeup_preempt_entity(cfs_rq->last, left) < 1) {
> >                 /*
> >                  * Prefer last buddy, try to return the CPU to a
> > preempted task.
> > 
> > 
> > There reason for left being NULL needs to be investigated. This was
> > there from v1 and we did not yet get to it. I shall try to debug later
> > this week.
> 
> Thinking more about it and looking at the crash, I think that
> 'left == NULL' can happen in pick_next_entity for core scheduling.
> If a cfs_rq has only one task that is running, then it will be
> dequeued and 'left = __pick_first_entity()' will be NULL as the
> cfs_rq will be empty. This would not happen outside of coresched
> because we never call pick_tack() before put_prev_task() which
> will enqueue the task back.
> 
> With core scheduling, a cpu can call pick_task() for its sibling while
> the sibling is still running the active task and put_prev_task has yet
> not been called. This can result in 'left == NULL'.

Quite correct. Hurmph.. the reason we do this is because... we do the
update_curr() the wrong way around. And I can't seem to remember why we
do that (it was in my original patches).

Something like so seems the obvious thing to do, but I can't seem to
remember why we're not doing it :-(

--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6950,15 +6950,10 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_task_fai
 	do {
 		struct sched_entity *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
 
-		se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, NULL);
+		if (curr && curr->on_rq)
+			update_curr(cfs_rq);
 
-		if (curr) {
-			if (se && curr->on_rq)
-				update_curr(cfs_rq);
-
-			if (!se || entity_before(curr, se))
-				se = curr;
-		}
+		se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, curr);
 
 		cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
 	} while (cfs_rq);
