mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	 Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	 Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	 Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Call wakeup_preempt() for queued tasks during class change
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 18:45:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCMmKFOSud7Zo7kbANkPXgSYbk=3daQtLvAsJLGvuBa0w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261013152455.9039-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com>

On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 at 17:25, K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com> wrote:
>
> Paul reported recent RCU changes exposed a lost resched where CPU idles
> with a rcutorture thread waiting while being completely runnable.
>
> Dumping the rq state at the time of idling with runnable tasks showed
> the following:
>
>   rq->next_class = &fair_sched_class
>   rq->nr_running = 1
>   rq->cfs.h_nr_queued = 0
>   rq->rt.rt_nr_running = 1
>
> Although the waiting task was an RT task, "rq->next_class" did not point
> to rt_sched_class and was stuck at the lower priority fair_sched_class.
>
> Inspecting sched_change_end() revealed the following race with
> __sched_setscheduler() for queued, but non-running tasks:
>
>     CPU0                                   CPU1
>     ====                                   ====
>
>   __schedule()
>
>     /*
>      * rq->donor is a fair task that blocks.
>      * rq->next_class = &fair_sched_class
>      */
>
>     rq_lock(rq0)
>
>     pick_next_task()
>       /* nr_running = 0 */
>       pick_task_fair()
>         sched_balance_newidle()
>           raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq0)
>                                     rq_lock(rq0)
>
>                                     activate_task(rq0, p)
>                                       /* p is a fair task */
>                                       rq0->nr_running++;
>                                       rq0->cfs.h_nr_queued++;
>                                       wakeup_preempt(rq, p)
>                                         rq->next_class = &fair_sched_class
>                                         resched_curr()
>
>                                     rq_unlock(rq0)
>
>                                     __sched_setscheduler(p)
>                                       /* p is moved to SCHED_RR */
>                                       task_rq_lock(p)
>                                       sched_change_begin()
>
>                                       rq0->cfs.h_nr_queued--;
>                                       rq0->rt.rt_nr_running++;
>
>                                       sched_change_end()
>                                         /*
>                                          * p->on_rq = 1 (ctx->queued)
>                                          * but p is not rq->donor
>                                          * (!ctx->running) hence
>                                          * resched_curr() is and
>                                          * rq->next_class upgrade is
>                                          * skipped.
>                                          */
>
>                                        task_rq_unlock()
>
>           raw_spin_rq_lock(rq0)
>
>           /*
>            * rq->nr_running = 1
>            * rq->cfs.h_nr_queued = 0
>            * rq->rt.rt_nr_running = 1
>            * rq->next_class = &fair_sched_class
>            */
>
>            if (rq->cfs.h_nr_queued && ...)
>              /* Above is false */
>
>            if (rq_modified_above(this_rq, &fair_sched_class))
>              /* Also false since rq->next_class is still fair */
>
>       /*
>        * sched_balance_newidle() is considered to
>        * have failed to pull any fair tasks and no
>        * other wakeups were detected.
>        */
>        return NULL; /* pick_task_fair() */
>
>     pick_task_idle()
>       return rq->idle;
>
>     next = rq->idle;
>
>     /* Preemption indicators are lost */
>     clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);
>     clear_preempt_need_resched();
>
>     rq->curr = rq->idle;
>
>   !!! rq->idle switches in with rq->running == 1 but !need_resched() !!!
>
> In simple words, enqueue, followed by a class change of the newly queued
> task goes unnoticed in rq->next_class indicator and
> sched_balance_newidle() sees no fair task, nor any higher priority task
> enqueued.
>
> The above sequence will lead to CPU idling with a runnable task on the
> CPU.
>
> Call wakeup_preempt() for ctx->queued cases in sched_change_end() to
> re-evaluate rq->next_class after class change (ENQUEUE_CLASS) and set
> the NEED_RESCHED indicator accordingly.
>
> Newidle balance will correctly see an enqueue of a higher priority
> task if a queued task was upgraded when the rq_lock() was dropped and
> will retry the pick.
>
> Reported-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8fa7f795-518c-4507-b684-60b0c1cac2c5@paulmck-laptop/
> Fixes: 1e900f415c60 ("sched: Detect per-class runqueue changes")
> Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>

Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>

> ---
> Patches are based on tip:sched/urgent at commit a0bb6fac53fa
> ("sched/core: Account PSI IRQ time to the execution context, not the
> scheduling context").
>
> Tested with sched-messaging and Paul's TREE01 reproducer.
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c | 19 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 1fe40de6ebe3..1754d9f95f2c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -11327,17 +11327,16 @@ void sched_change_end(struct sched_change_ctx *ctx)
>                 if (p->sched_class->switched_to)
>                         p->sched_class->switched_to(rq, p);
>
> +               /*
> +                * Check if the task can preempt the current in case the class
> +                * was upgraded. Note that none of the switch*_from() methods
> +                * know the new class and none of the switch*_to() methods know
> +                * the old class so we must resched here.
> +                */
> +               if (ctx->queued)
> +                       wakeup_preempt(rq, p, 0);
> +
>                 if (ctx->running) {
> -                       /*
> -                        * If this was a class promotion; let the old class
> -                        * know it got preempted. Note that none of the
> -                        * switch*_from() methods know the new class and none
> -                        * of the switch*_to() methods know the old class.
> -                        */
> -                       if (sched_class_above(p->sched_class, ctx->class)) {
> -                               rq->next_class->wakeup_preempt(rq, p, 0);
> -                               rq->next_class = p->sched_class;
> -                       }
>                         /*
>                          * If this was a degradation in class; make sure to
>                          * reschedule.
>
> base-commit: a0bb6fac53fa7cf1cadb487b43d4c9276a6b82e3
> --
> 2.34.1
>

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-13 16:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-12 18:41 [BUG] Apparent lost wakeups Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-13  6:06 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13  6:46   ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13  7:58     ` Vincent Guittot
2026-10-13  8:30       ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13  8:36         ` Vincent Guittot
2026-10-13 10:14       ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-13 10:29         ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13 10:37           ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-13 10:43             ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13 10:06     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-13 15:24 ` [PATCH] sched/core: Call wakeup_preempt() for queued tasks during class change K Prateek Nayak
2026-10-13 16:45   ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2026-10-13 17:57   ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-13 19:55     ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-13 20:06       ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-10-14  0:13         ` Paul E. McKenney

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='CAKfTPtCMmKFOSud7Zo7kbANkPXgSYbk=3daQtLvAsJLGvuBa0w@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.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®