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
>
next prev parent 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®