mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxarm@huawei.com, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com,
	yangyicong@hisilicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Don't count nr_running twice for dl_server proxy tasks
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 10:05:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aF5QwYFj15DLDbBR@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250627035420.37712-1-yangyicong@huawei.com>

Hello,

On 27/06/25 11:54, Yicong Yang wrote:
> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> 
> On CPU offline the kernel stalled with below call trace:
> 
>   INFO: task kworker/0:1:11 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>         Tainted: G           O        6.15.0-rc4+ #1
>   "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>   task:kworker/0:1     state:D stack:0     pid:11    tgid:11    ppid:2   task_flags:0x4208060 flags:0x00000008
>   Workqueue: events vmstat_shepherd
>   Call trace:
>    __switch_to+0x118/0x188 (T)
>    __schedule+0x31c/0x1300
>    schedule+0x3c/0x120
>    percpu_rwsem_wait+0x12c/0x1b0
>    __percpu_down_read+0x78/0x188
>    cpus_read_lock+0xc4/0xe8
>    vmstat_shepherd+0x30/0x138
>    process_one_work+0x154/0x3c8
>    worker_thread+0x2e8/0x400
>    kthread+0x154/0x230
>    ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>   INFO: task kworker/1:1:116 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>         Tainted: G           O        6.15.0-rc4+ #1
>   "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>   task:kworker/1:1     state:D stack:0     pid:116   tgid:116   ppid:2   task_flags:0x4208060 flags:0x00000008
>   Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>   Call trace:
>    __switch_to+0x118/0x188 (T)
>    __schedule+0x31c/0x1300
>    schedule+0x3c/0x120
>    schedule_timeout+0x10c/0x120
>    __wait_for_common+0xc4/0x1b8
>    wait_for_completion+0x28/0x40
>    cpuhp_kick_ap_work+0x114/0x3c8
>    _cpu_down+0x130/0x4b8
>    __cpu_down_maps_locked+0x20/0x38
>    work_for_cpu_fn+0x24/0x40
>    process_one_work+0x154/0x3c8
>    worker_thread+0x2e8/0x400
>    kthread+0x154/0x230
>    ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> 
> cpuhp hold the cpu hotplug lock endless and stalled vmstat_shepherd.
> This is because we count nr_running twice on cpuhp enqueuing and failed
> the wait condition of cpuhp:
> 
> enqueue_task_fair() // pick cpuhp from idle, rq->nr_running = 0
>   dl_server_start()
>     [...]
>     add_nr_running() // rq->nr_running = 1
>   add_nr_running() // rq->nr_running = 2
> [switch to cpuhp, waiting on balance_hotplug_wait()]
> rcuwait_wait_event(rq->nr_running == 1 && ...) // failed, rq->nr_running=2
>   schedule() // wait again
> 
> This doesn't make sense to count one single task twice on
> rq->nr_running. So fix this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index ad45a8fea245..59fb178762ee 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1894,7 +1894,9 @@ void inc_dl_tasks(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
>  	u64 deadline = dl_se->deadline;
>  
>  	dl_rq->dl_nr_running++;
> -	add_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
> +
> +	if (!dl_server(dl_se))
> +		add_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
>  
>  	inc_dl_deadline(dl_rq, deadline);
>  }
> @@ -1904,7 +1906,9 @@ void dec_dl_tasks(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
>  {
>  	WARN_ON(!dl_rq->dl_nr_running);
>  	dl_rq->dl_nr_running--;
> -	sub_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
> +
> +	if (!dl_server(dl_se))
> +		sub_nr_running(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 1);
>  
>  	dec_dl_deadline(dl_rq, dl_se->deadline);
>  }

This seems to make sense to me. Thanks for the analysis and the patch.

Peter, what do you think?

Thanks,
Juri


  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-27  8:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-27  3:54 Yicong Yang
2025-06-27  8:05 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2025-07-08  8:37   ` Yicong Yang
2025-08-27  6:45 ` [tip: sched/urgent] sched/deadline: Don't count nr_running " tip-bot2 for Yicong Yang

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=aF5QwYFj15DLDbBR@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb \
    --to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=yangyicong@huawei.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®