mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
To: dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ghaskins@novell.com
Subject: [PATCH RFC] sched: Fixed missed rt-balance points on priority shifts
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:53:23 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071210024709.4760.68134.stgit@novell1.haskins.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <475BEE6B.BA47.005A.0@novell.com>

Hi Ingo, Steven, Dmitry,
   Here is a proposed fix for the issue that Dmitry brought up today.  It
   should apply cleanly to sched-devel (though I have a few of my other
   submitted fixes queued ahead of this that are not yet in sched-devel...so if
   you have a problem let me know and I will rebase/resubmit)

Regards,
-Greg

--------------------------
sched: Fixed missed rt-balance points on priority shifts

Dmitry Adamushko identified several holes in the rt-migration stategy relating
to changing priority via sched_setscheduler or rt_mutex_setprio:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/9/94

This patch should button up those conditions.

Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
---

 kernel/sched.c    |    8 ++++++++
 kernel/sched_rt.c |   46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 02f04bc..fd08ac2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ struct rt_rq {
 	/* highest queued rt task prio */
 	int highest_prio;
 	int overloaded;
+	int needs_pull;
 };
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
@@ -4037,6 +4038,9 @@ void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio)
 			check_preempt_curr(rq, p);
 		}
 	}
+
+	wakeup_balance_rt(rq, p);
+
 	task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
 }
 
@@ -4341,6 +4345,9 @@ recheck:
 			check_preempt_curr(rq, p);
 		}
 	}
+
+	wakeup_balance_rt(rq, p);
+
 	__task_rq_unlock(rq);
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
 
@@ -6887,6 +6894,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->migration_queue);
 		rq->rt.highest_prio = MAX_RT_PRIO;
 		rq->rt.overloaded = 0;
+		rq->rt.needs_pull = 0;
 #endif
 		atomic_set(&rq->nr_iowait, 0);
 
diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c
index 65cbb78..1257575 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c
@@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ static inline void inc_rt_tasks(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
 
 static inline void dec_rt_tasks(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
 {
+	int highest_prio = rq->rt.highest_prio;
+
 	WARN_ON(!rt_task(p));
 	WARN_ON(!rq->rt.rt_nr_running);
 	rq->rt.rt_nr_running--;
@@ -103,6 +105,42 @@ static inline void dec_rt_tasks(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
 	if (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
 		rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory--;
 
+	if (rq->rt.highest_prio > highest_prio) {
+		/*
+		 * If the departing task is reducing our priority, we need to
+		 * check if we should pull tasks because its always possible
+		 * that another RQ tried to push tasks away but skipped us due
+		 * to elevated priority.  That elevated priority is now
+		 * subsiding so there may be tasks that are newly eligible for
+		 * migration.  This pull operation is currently facilitated
+		 * via schedule().
+		 */
+		rq->rt.needs_pull = 1;
+
+		/*
+		 * FIXME: I am not sure about this next part:
+		 *
+		 * If the departing task is already running, we dont need to be
+		 * specific about rescheduling because presumably it will
+		 * happen momentarily anyway.  However, if the departing task
+		 * was *not* the current task (#), we should invoke a
+		 * reschedule to make sure we have the optimal task running.
+		 *
+		 * (#) It may seem like a pathological condition to have the
+		 * highest priority task not also be the current task.  However
+		 * consider the condition where this highest task was enqueued
+		 * and subsequently dequeued before the RQ ever had a chance to
+		 * reschedule.
+		 *
+		 * I have no doubt that this is the proper thing to do to make
+		 * sure RT tasks are properly balanced.  What I cannot wrap my
+		 * head around at this late hour is if issuing a reschedule()
+		 * here may cause issues in other circumstances.  TBD
+		 */
+		if (!task_running(rq, p))
+			resched_task(rq->curr);
+	}
+
 	update_rt_migration(rq);
 #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
 }
@@ -662,8 +700,14 @@ static int pull_rt_task(struct rq *this_rq)
 static void schedule_balance_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
 {
 	/* Try to pull RT tasks here if we lower this rq's prio */
-	if (unlikely(rt_task(prev)) && rq->rt.highest_prio > prev->prio)
+	if (unlikely(rq->rt.needs_pull)) {
+		/*
+		 * Clear the flag first, since pulling may release the lock
+		 * and someone else may re-set the needs_pull
+		 */
+		rq->rt.needs_pull = 0;
 		pull_rt_task(rq);
+	}
 }
 
 static void schedule_tail_balance_rt(struct rq *rq)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-12-10  3:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20071130145939.GN5681@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
     [not found] ` <b647ffbd0712011156p252ae29dnfa75494e4d2c845c@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]   ` <20071203182223.GA4133@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
     [not found]     ` <47556B23.2060909@redhat.com>
     [not found]       ` <20071204153542.GC3388@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
     [not found]         ` <b647ffbd0712040828l51a26a82jc0f38d3f4aa2291e@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]           ` <20071205134036.GA21933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
     [not found]             ` <4756B8E9.3080709@redhat.com>
     [not found]               ` <20071205164800.GA24767@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
     [not found]                 ` <4756D709.1020901@redhat.com>
2007-12-09 17:16                   ` RT Load balance changes in sched-devel Dmitry Adamushko
2007-12-09 18:32                     ` Gregory Haskins
2007-12-10  0:57                       ` Steven Rostedt
2007-12-10  2:53                       ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2007-12-10  3:18                         ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Fixed missed rt-balance points on priority shifts Gregory Haskins

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=20071210024709.4760.68134.stgit@novell1.haskins.net \
    --to=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.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®