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)
next prev 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®