linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@google.com>
Cc: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
	Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <Patrick.Bellasi@arm.com>,
	Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
	John Dias <joaodias@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: vruntime should normalize when switching from fair
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:32:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180824093227.GN24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcd2fa21-7fef-d648-017d-9d42d11793e0@google.com>

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 04:54:25PM -0700, Miguel de Dios wrote:
> On 08/17/2018 11:27 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > From: John Dias <joaodias@google.com>
> > 
> > When rt_mutex_setprio changes a task's scheduling class to RT,
> > we're seeing cases where the task's vruntime is not updated
> > correctly upon return to the fair class.
> > Specifically, the following is being observed:
> > - task is deactivated while still in the fair class
> > - task is boosted to RT via rt_mutex_setprio, which changes
> >    the task to RT and calls check_class_changed.
> > - check_class_changed leads to detach_task_cfs_rq, at which point
> >    the vruntime_normalized check sees that the task's state is TASK_WAKING,
> >    which results in skipping the subtraction of the rq's min_vruntime
> >    from the task's vruntime
> > - later, when the prio is deboosted and the task is moved back
> >    to the fair class, the fair rq's min_vruntime is added to
> >    the task's vruntime, even though it wasn't subtracted earlier.
> > The immediate result is inflation of the task's vruntime, giving
> > it lower priority (starving it if there's enough available work).
> > The longer-term effect is inflation of all vruntimes because the
> > task's vruntime becomes the rq's min_vruntime when the higher
> > priority tasks go idle. That leads to a vicious cycle, where
> > the vruntime inflation repeatedly doubled.
> > 
> > The change here is to detect when vruntime_normalized is being
> > called when the task is waking but is waking in another class,
> > and to conclude that this is a case where vruntime has not
> > been normalized.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: John Dias <joaodias@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
> > ---
> >   kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index b39fb596f6c1..14011d7929d8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -9638,7 +9638,8 @@ static inline bool vruntime_normalized(struct task_struct *p)
> >   	 * - A task which has been woken up by try_to_wake_up() and
> >   	 *   waiting for actually being woken up by sched_ttwu_pending().
> >   	 */
> > -	if (!se->sum_exec_runtime || p->state == TASK_WAKING)
> > +	if (!se->sum_exec_runtime ||
> > +	    (p->state == TASK_WAKING && p->sched_class == &fair_sched_class))
> >   		return true;
> >   	return false;

> The normalization of vruntime used to exist in task_waking but it was
> removed and the normalization was moved into migrate_task_rq_fair. The
> reasoning being that task_waking_fair was only hit when a task is queued
> onto a different core and migrate_task_rq_fair should do the same work.
> 
> However, we're finding that there's one case which migrate_task_rq_fair
> doesn't hit: that being the case where rt_mutex_setprio changes a task's
> scheduling class to RT when its scheduled out. The task never hits
> migrate_task_rq_fair because it is switched to RT and migrates as an RT
> task. Because of this we're getting an unbounded addition of min_vruntime
> when the task is re-attached to the CFS runqueue when it loses the inherited
> priority. The patch above works because now the kernel specifically checks
> for this case and normalizes accordingly.
> 
> Here's the patch I was talking about:
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/677689/. In our testing we were
> seeing vruntimes nearly double every time after rt_mutex_setprio boosts the
> task to RT.

Bah, patchwork is such shit... how do you get to the previus patch from
there? Because I think 2/3 is the actual commit that changed things, 3/3
just cleans up a bit.

That would be commit:

  b5179ac70de8 ("sched/fair: Prepare to fix fairness problems on migration")

But I'm still somewhat confused; how would task_waking_fair() have
helped if we're already changed to a different class?



  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-08-24  9:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-17 18:27 [PATCH] sched/fair: vruntime should normalize when switching from fair Steve Muckle
2018-08-20 23:54 ` Miguel de Dios
2018-08-23 16:52   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-24  6:54     ` Juri Lelli
2018-08-24 21:17       ` Steve Muckle
2018-09-06 23:25       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-07  7:16         ` Juri Lelli
2018-09-07  7:58           ` Vincent Guittot
2018-09-11  6:24             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-24  9:32   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-08-24  9:47     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-24 21:24       ` Steve Muckle
2018-08-27 11:14         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-28 14:53           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-29 10:54             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-29 11:59               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-29 15:33                 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-31 22:24                   ` Steve Muckle
2018-09-26  9:50             ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-26 22:38               ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-27  1:19                 ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-27 13:22                   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-28  0:43                     ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-28 16:10                       ` Steve Muckle
2018-09-28 16:45                         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-09-28 17:35                         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-29  1:07                           ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-28 17:11                       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-28 16:43                   ` Joel Fernandes

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180824093227.GN24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=Chris.Redpath@arm.com \
    --cc=Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=Patrick.Bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=joaodias@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=migueldedios@google.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=smuckle@google.com \
    --cc=tkjos@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).