From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, wanpeng.li@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:42:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160210134240.GB11415@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160210134848.12e6a6f8@utopia>
On 10/02/16 13:48, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +0000
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > From 62f70ca3051672dce209e8355cf5eddc9d825c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:41:09 +0000
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted
> > bandwidth
> >
> > Currently SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling policy tracks bandwidth of tasks
> > that passed admission control at root_domain level only. This creates
> > problems when such data structure(s) are destroyed, when we
> > reconfigure scheduling domains for example.
> >
> > This is part one of two changes required to fix the problem. In this
> > patch we add per-rq tracking of admitted bandwidth. Tasks bring with
> > them their bandwidth contribution when they enter the system and are
> > enqueued for the first time. Contributions are then moved around when
> > migrations happen and removed when tasks die.
>
> I think this patch actually does two different things (addressing two
> separate problems):
> 1) it introduces the tracking of per-rq utilization (used in your next
> patch to address the root domain issues)
> 2) it fixes a bug in the current utilization tracking mechanism.
> Currently, a task doing
> while(1) {
> switch to SCHED_DEADLINE
> switch to SCHED_OTHER
> }
> brings dl_b->total_bw below 0. Thanks to Juri for showing me this
> problem (and how to reproduce it) in a private email.
> This happens because when the task switches back from SCHED_DEADLINE
> to SCHED_OTHER, switched_from_dl() does not clear its deadline
> parameters (they will be cleared by the deadline timer when it
> fires). But dl_overflow() removes its utilization from
> dl_b->total_bw. When the task switches back to SCHED_DEADLINE, the
> if (new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw) check in dl_overflow() prevents
> __dl_add() from being called, and so when the task switches back to
> SCHED_OTHER dl_b->total_bw becomes negative.
>
Yep. That is also the reason why I think, whatever refactoring we are
goind to do, we should keep per-rq and root_domain accounting done
together.
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 9503d59..0ee0ec2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -2432,7 +2432,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p,
> > int policy, u64 new_bw = dl_policy(policy) ? to_ratio(period,
> > runtime) : 0; int cpus, err = -1;
> >
> > - if (new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw)
> > + if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw)
> > return 0;
>
> This hunk actually fixes issue 2) mentioned above, so I think it should
> be committed in a short time (independently from the rest of the
> patch). And maybe is a good candidate for backporting to stable kernels?
>
Yes, this is a sensible fix per se. I can split it and send it
separately.
Best,
- Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-10 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-08 12:45 [PATCH 0/2] sched/deadline: fix cpusets bandwidth accounting Juri Lelli
2016-02-08 12:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 11:32 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 11:43 ` luca abeni
2016-02-10 11:58 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-19 13:43 ` luca abeni
2016-02-19 14:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-19 14:53 ` luca abeni
2016-02-19 14:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-22 11:03 ` luca abeni
2016-02-22 10:57 ` [PATCH 0/3] cleanup " Luca Abeni
2016-02-22 10:57 ` [PATCH 1/4] Move some calls to __dl_{sub,add}_ac() from core.c to deadline.c Luca Abeni
2016-02-22 10:57 ` [PATCH 2/4] Move the remaining __dl_{sub,add}_ac() calls " Luca Abeni
2016-02-22 10:57 ` [PATCH 3/4] Remove dl_new Luca Abeni
2016-02-23 15:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-24 13:53 ` luca abeni
2016-02-25 9:46 ` Juri Lelli
2016-03-03 9:03 ` luca abeni
2016-03-03 9:28 ` Juri Lelli
2016-03-03 14:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-03-03 14:31 ` luca abeni
2016-03-03 16:12 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 12:48 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth luca abeni
2016-02-10 13:42 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2016-02-23 15:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-23 15:51 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 14:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-10 16:27 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 12:12 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 12:22 ` luca abeni
2016-02-11 12:27 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 12:40 ` luca abeni
2016-02-11 12:49 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 13:05 ` luca abeni
2016-02-11 14:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-11 17:10 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-12 17:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-12 17:19 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-24 19:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-24 21:46 ` luca abeni
2016-02-25 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-25 10:07 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-25 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-24 9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 21:48 ` Luca Abeni
2016-02-08 12:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/deadline: rq_{online,offline}_dl for root_domain changes Juri Lelli
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=20160210134240.GB11415@e106622-lin \
--to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wanpeng.li@hotmail.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®