mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de,
	patchwork-lst@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Fix stale throttling on de-/boosted tasks
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:00:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200902060024.GK16601@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200831110719.2126930-1-l.stach@pengutronix.de>

Hi,

On 31/08/20 13:07, Lucas Stach wrote:
> When a boosted task gets throttled, what normally happens is that it's
> immediately enqueued again with ENQUEUE_REPLENISH, which replenishes the
> runtime and clears the dl_throttled flag. There is a special case however:
> if the throttling happened on sched-out and the task has been deboosted in
> the meantime, the replenish is skipped as the task will return to its
> normal scheduling class. This leaves the task with the dl_throttled flag
> set.
> 
> Now if the task gets boosted up to the deadline scheduling class again
> while it is sleeping, it's still in the throttled state. The normal wakeup
> however will enqueue the task with ENQUEUE_REPLENISH not set, so we don't
> actually place it on the rq. Thus we end up with a task that is runnable,
> but not actually on the rq and neither a immediate replenishment happens,
> nor is the replenishment timer set up, so the task is stuck in
> forever-throttled limbo.
> 
> Clear the dl_throttled flag before dropping back to the normal scheduling
> class to fix this issue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
> ---
> This is the root cause and fix of the issue described at [1]. After working
> on other stuff for the last few months, I finally was able to circle back
> to this issue and gather the required data to pinpoint the failure mode.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/20/765
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 3862a28cd05d..c19c1883d695 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1527,12 +1527,15 @@ static void enqueue_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>  		pi_se = &pi_task->dl;
>  	} else if (!dl_prio(p->normal_prio)) {
>  		/*
> -		 * Special case in which we have a !SCHED_DEADLINE task
> -		 * that is going to be deboosted, but exceeds its
> -		 * runtime while doing so. No point in replenishing
> -		 * it, as it's going to return back to its original
> -		 * scheduling class after this.
> +		 * Special case in which we have a !SCHED_DEADLINE task that is going
> +		 * to be deboosted, but exceeds its runtime while doing so. No point in
> +		 * replenishing it, as it's going to return back to its original
> +		 * scheduling class after this. If it has been throttled, we need to
> +		 * clear the flag, otherwise the task may wake up as throttled after
> +		 * being boosted again with no means to replenish the runtime and clear
> +		 * the throttle.
>  		 */
> +		p->dl.dl_throttled = 0;
>  		BUG_ON(!p->dl.dl_boosted || flags != ENQUEUE_REPLENISH);
>  		return;
>  	}

Ah, right, thanks for looking into this issue!

Wonder if we should be calling __dl_clear_params() instead of just
clearing dl_throttled, but what you propose makes sense to me.

Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>

Best,

Juri


  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-02  6:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-31 11:07 Lucas Stach
2020-09-02  6:00 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2020-09-02  9:43   ` peterz
2020-09-09 12:59     ` Lucas Stach
2020-09-16  7:40     ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2020-09-29  7:56 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Lucas Stach

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=20200902060024.GK16601@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=l.stach@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=patchwork-lst@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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®