mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: "Bjoern B. Brandenburg" <bbb.lst@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andrea Bastoni <bastoni@sprg.uniroma2.it>,
	"James H. Anderson" <anderson@cs.unc.edu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler bug related to rq->skip_clock_update?
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:14:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1290359641.4816.69.camel@maggy.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1011202315290.8927@jupiter-cs.cs.unc.edu>

On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 23:22 -0500, Bjoern B. Brandenburg wrote:

> I was under the impression that, as an invariant, tasks should not have
> TIF_NEED_RESCHED set after they've blocked. In this case, the idle load
> balancer should not mark the task that's on its way out with
> set_tsk_need_resched().

Nice find.

> In any case, check_preempt_curr() seems to assume that a resuming task cannot
> have TIF_NEED_RESCHED already set. Setting skip_clock_update on a remote CPU
> that hasn't even been notified via IPI seems wrong.

Yes. Does the below fix it up for you?

Sched: clear_tsk_need_resched() after pull_task() when NEWIDLE balancing

pull_task() may call set_tsk_need_resched() on a deactivated task,
leaving it vulnerable to an inappropriate preemption after wakeup.

This also confuses the skip_clock_update logic, which assumes that
schedule() will be called in very short order after being set.  Make
that logic more robust by clearing in update_rq_clock() itself, so
only one update can be skipped.

Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Bjoern B. Brandenburg <bbb.lst@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Bjoern B. Brandenburg <bbb.lst@gmail.com>

---
 kernel/sched.c      |    3 ++-
 kernel/sched_fair.c |   10 ++++++++--
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -657,6 +657,8 @@ inline void update_rq_clock(struct rq *r
 
 		sched_irq_time_avg_update(rq, irq_time);
 	}
+
+	rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -3714,7 +3716,6 @@ static void put_prev_task(struct rq *rq,
 {
 	if (prev->se.on_rq)
 		update_rq_clock(rq);
-	rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
 	prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev);
 }
 
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -2019,15 +2019,21 @@ balance_tasks(struct rq *this_rq, int th
 		pulled++;
 		rem_load_move -= p->se.load.weight;
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
 		/*
+		 * pull_task() may have set_tsk_need_resched().  Clear it
+		 * lest a sleeper awaken and be inappropriately preempted
+		 * shortly thereafter.
+		 *
 		 * NEWIDLE balancing is a source of latency, so preemptible
 		 * kernels will stop after the first task is pulled to minimize
 		 * the critical section.
 		 */
-		if (idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
+		if (idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) {
+			clear_tsk_need_resched(this_rq->curr);
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
 			break;
 #endif
+		}
 
 		/*
 		 * We only want to steal up to the prescribed amount of



  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-21 17:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-21  4:22 Bjoern B. Brandenburg
2010-11-21 17:14 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2010-11-22  4:29   ` Bjoern B. Brandenburg
2010-11-22 16:19     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-11-22 18:14       ` Bjoern B. Brandenburg
2010-12-04  7:42         ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-04 14:05           ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-04 14:08         ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-04 14:33           ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-05  5:28         ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-06  5:33           ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-06  7:59             ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-06  8:32               ` [patchlet] " Mike Galbraith
2010-12-07 16:41                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-07 18:55                   ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-08 10:05                     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-08 11:12                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 20:40                       ` [tip:sched/urgent] Sched: fix skip_clock_update optimization tip-bot for Mike Galbraith
2010-12-09 15:32                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-10  2:33                           ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-10 16:17                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-06 15:40             ` Scheduler bug related to rq->skip_clock_update? Bjoern B. Brandenburg
2010-12-03 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra

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=1290359641.4816.69.camel@maggy.simson.net \
    --to=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=anderson@cs.unc.edu \
    --cc=bastoni@sprg.uniroma2.it \
    --cc=bbb.lst@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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

Powered by JetHome