From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
Subject: [RFC v2 4/7] Fix the update of the total -deadline utilization
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 17:12:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1459523553-29089-5-git-send-email-luca.abeni@unitn.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459523553-29089-1-git-send-email-luca.abeni@unitn.it>
Now that the inactive timer can be armed to fire at the 0-lag time,
it is possible to use inactive_task_timer() to update the total
-deadline utilization (dl_b->total_bw) at the correct time, fixing
dl_overflow() and __setparam_dl().
Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 36 ++++++++++++------------------------
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 23d235c..4158d1f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2347,9 +2347,6 @@ static inline int dl_bw_cpus(int i)
* allocated bandwidth to reflect the new situation.
*
* This function is called while holding p's rq->lock.
- *
- * XXX we should delay bw change until the task's 0-lag point, see
- * __setparam_dl().
*/
static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int policy,
const struct sched_attr *attr)
@@ -2377,11 +2374,22 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int policy,
err = 0;
} else if (dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p) &&
!__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, p->dl.dl_bw, new_bw)) {
+ /*
+ * XXX this is slightly incorrect: when the task
+ * utilization decreases, we should delay the total
+ * utilization change until the task's 0-lag point.
+ * But this would require to set the task's "inactive
+ * timer" when the task is not inactive.
+ */
__dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
__dl_add(dl_b, new_bw);
err = 0;
} else if (!dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p)) {
- __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
+ /*
+ * Do not decrease the total deadline utilization here,
+ * switched_from_dl() will take care to do it at the correct
+ * (0-lag) time.
+ */
err = 0;
}
raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock);
@@ -3647,26 +3655,6 @@ __setparam_dl(struct task_struct *p, const struct sched_attr *attr)
dl_se->dl_period = attr->sched_period ?: dl_se->dl_deadline;
dl_se->flags = attr->sched_flags;
dl_se->dl_bw = to_ratio(dl_se->dl_period, dl_se->dl_runtime);
-
- /*
- * Changing the parameters of a task is 'tricky' and we're not doing
- * the correct thing -- also see task_dead_dl() and switched_from_dl().
- *
- * What we SHOULD do is delay the bandwidth release until the 0-lag
- * point. This would include retaining the task_struct until that time
- * and change dl_overflow() to not immediately decrement the current
- * amount.
- *
- * Instead we retain the current runtime/deadline and let the new
- * parameters take effect after the current reservation period lapses.
- * This is safe (albeit pessimistic) because the 0-lag point is always
- * before the current scheduling deadline.
- *
- * We can still have temporary overloads because we do not delay the
- * change in bandwidth until that time; so admission control is
- * not on the safe side. It does however guarantee tasks will never
- * consume more than promised.
- */
}
/*
diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index 97cd5f2..ca7910a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -98,8 +98,14 @@ static void task_go_inactive(struct task_struct *p)
*/
if (ktime_us_delta(act, now) < 0) {
sub_running_bw(dl_se, dl_rq);
- if (!dl_task(p))
+ if (!dl_task(p)) {
+ struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p));
+
+ raw_spin_lock(&dl_b->lock);
+ __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
__dl_clear_params(p);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock);
+ }
return;
}
@@ -865,8 +871,13 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart inactive_task_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
- if (!dl_task(p)) {
+ if (!dl_task(p) || p->state == TASK_DEAD) {
+ struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p));
+
+ raw_spin_lock(&dl_b->lock);
+ __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
__dl_clear_params(p);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock);
goto unlock;
}
@@ -1341,15 +1352,21 @@ static void task_fork_dl(struct task_struct *p)
static void task_dead_dl(struct task_struct *p)
{
- struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p));
-
/*
* Since we are TASK_DEAD we won't slip out of the domain!
*/
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&dl_b->lock);
- /* XXX we should retain the bw until 0-lag */
- dl_b->total_bw -= p->dl.dl_bw;
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&dl_b->lock);
+ if (!hrtimer_active(&p->dl.inactive_timer)) {
+ struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p));
+
+ /*
+ * If the "inactive timer is not active, the 0-lag time
+ * is already passed, so we immediately decrease the
+ * total deadline utilization
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&dl_b->lock);
+ __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&dl_b->lock);
+ }
}
static void set_curr_task_dl(struct rq *rq)
--
2.5.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-01 15:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-01 15:12 [RFC v2 0/7] CPU reclaiming for SCHED_DEADLINE Luca Abeni
2016-04-01 15:12 ` [RFC v2 1/7] Track the active utilisation Luca Abeni
2016-04-05 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 16:47 ` luca abeni
2016-04-01 15:12 ` [RFC v2 2/7] Correctly track the active utilisation for migrating tasks Luca Abeni
2016-04-05 12:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 16:50 ` luca abeni
2016-04-01 15:12 ` [RFC v2 3/7] Improve the tracking of active utilisation Luca Abeni
2016-04-05 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 17:00 ` luca abeni
2016-04-05 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 17:05 ` luca abeni
2016-04-05 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 17:17 ` luca abeni
2016-04-05 15:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 17:56 ` luca abeni
2016-04-05 18:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 19:35 ` luca abeni
2016-04-05 18:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 19:24 ` luca abeni
2016-04-05 19:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 19:32 ` luca abeni
2016-04-05 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 15:12 ` Luca Abeni [this message]
2016-04-05 12:58 ` [RFC v2 4/7] Fix the update of the total -deadline utilization Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 17:16 ` luca abeni
2016-04-01 15:12 ` [RFC v2 5/7] GRUB accounting Luca Abeni
2016-04-01 15:12 ` [RFC v2 6/7] Make GRUB a task's flag Luca Abeni
2016-04-01 15:12 ` [RFC v2 7/7] Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth Luca Abeni
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=1459523553-29089-5-git-send-email-luca.abeni@unitn.it \
--to=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®