linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Cc: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@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: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:14:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180827111458.GB24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ae94fb88-646b-1d82-b61d-103792965dbf@google.com>

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:24:48PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On 08/24/2018 02:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On 08/17/2018 11:27 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 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.
> > 
> > I'm thinking that is an incomplete scenario; where do we get to
> > TASK_WAKING.
> 
> Yes there's a missing bit of context here at the beginning that the task to
> be boosted had already been put into TASK_WAKING.

See, I'm confused...

The only time TASK_WAKING is visible, is if we've done a remote wakeup
and it's 'stuck' on the remote wake_list. And in that case we've done
migrate_task_rq_fair() on it.

So by the time either rt_mutex_setprio() or __sched_setscheduler() get
to calling check_class_changed(), under both pi_lock and rq->lock, the
vruntime_normalized() thing should be right.

So please detail the exact scenario. Because I'm not seeing it.


  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-27 11:15 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
2018-08-24  9:47     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-24 21:24       ` Steve Muckle
2018-08-27 11:14         ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=20180827111458.GB24124@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).