From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@google.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <Patrick.Bellasi@arm.com>,
Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: vruntime should normalize when switching from fair
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:52:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b27b2354-cbfe-7c16-bdc1-d88ed3be90bd@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcd2fa21-7fef-d648-017d-9d42d11793e0@google.com>
Hi,
On 08/21/2018 01:54 AM, Miguel de Dios wrote:
> On 08/17/2018 11:27 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
>> From: John Dias <joaodias@google.com>
>>
>> When rt_mutex_setprio changes a task's scheduling class to RT,
>> we're seeing cases where the task's vruntime is not updated
>> correctly upon return to the fair class.
>> Specifically, the following is being observed:
>> - task is deactivated while still in the fair class
>> - task is boosted to RT via rt_mutex_setprio, which changes
>> the task to RT and calls check_class_changed.
>> - check_class_changed leads to detach_task_cfs_rq, at which point
>> the vruntime_normalized check sees that the task's state is
>> TASK_WAKING,
>> which results in skipping the subtraction of the rq's min_vruntime
>> from the task's vruntime
>> - later, when the prio is deboosted and the task is moved back
>> to the fair class, the fair rq's min_vruntime is added to
>> the task's vruntime, even though it wasn't subtracted earlier.
>> The immediate result is inflation of the task's vruntime, giving
>> it lower priority (starving it if there's enough available work).
>> The longer-term effect is inflation of all vruntimes because the
>> task's vruntime becomes the rq's min_vruntime when the higher
>> priority tasks go idle. That leads to a vicious cycle, where
>> the vruntime inflation repeatedly doubled.
>>
>> The change here is to detect when vruntime_normalized is being
>> called when the task is waking but is waking in another class,
>> and to conclude that this is a case where vruntime has not
>> been normalized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Dias <joaodias@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index b39fb596f6c1..14011d7929d8 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -9638,7 +9638,8 @@ static inline bool vruntime_normalized(struct
>> task_struct *p)
>> * - A task which has been woken up by try_to_wake_up() and
>> * waiting for actually being woken up by sched_ttwu_pending().
>> */
>> - if (!se->sum_exec_runtime || p->state == TASK_WAKING)
>> + if (!se->sum_exec_runtime ||
>> + (p->state == TASK_WAKING && p->sched_class ==
>> &fair_sched_class))
>> return true;
>> return false;
> The normalization of vruntime used to exist in task_waking but it was
> removed and the normalization was moved into migrate_task_rq_fair. The
> reasoning being that task_waking_fair was only hit when a task is queued
> onto a different core and migrate_task_rq_fair should do the same work.
>
> However, we're finding that there's one case which migrate_task_rq_fair
> doesn't hit: that being the case where rt_mutex_setprio changes a task's
> scheduling class to RT when its scheduled out. The task never hits
> migrate_task_rq_fair because it is switched to RT and migrates as an RT
> task. Because of this we're getting an unbounded addition of
> min_vruntime when the task is re-attached to the CFS runqueue when it
> loses the inherited priority. The patch above works because now the
> kernel specifically checks for this case and normalizes accordingly.
>
> Here's the patch I was talking about:
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/677689/. In our testing we were
> seeing vruntimes nearly double every time after rt_mutex_setprio boosts
> the task to RT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@google.com>
> Tested-by: Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@google.com>
I tried to catch this issue on my Arm64 Juno board using pi_test (and a
slightly adapted pip_test (usleep_val = 1500 and keep low as cfs)) from
rt-tests but wasn't able to do so.
# pi_stress --inversions=1 --duration=1 --groups=1 --sched id=low,policy=cfs
Starting PI Stress Test
Number of thread groups: 1
Duration of test run: 1 seconds
Number of inversions per group: 1
Admin thread SCHED_FIFO priority 4
1 groups of 3 threads will be created
High thread SCHED_FIFO priority 3
Med thread SCHED_FIFO priority 2
Low thread SCHED_OTHER nice 0
# ./pip_stress
In both cases, the cfs task entering rt_mutex_setprio() is queued, so
dequeue_task_fair()->dequeue_entity(), which subtracts
cfs_rq->min_vruntime from se->vruntime, is called on it before it gets
the rt prio.
Maybe it requires a very specific use of the pthread library to provoke
this issue by making sure that the cfs tasks really blocks/sleeps?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-23 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-17 18:27 Steve Muckle
2018-08-20 23:54 ` Miguel de Dios
2018-08-23 16:52 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2018-08-24 6:54 ` Juri Lelli
2018-08-24 21:17 ` Steve Muckle
2018-09-06 23:25 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-07 7:16 ` Juri Lelli
2018-09-07 7:58 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-09-11 6:24 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-24 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-24 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-24 21:24 ` Steve Muckle
2018-08-27 11:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-28 14:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-29 10:54 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-29 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-29 15:33 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-08-31 22:24 ` Steve Muckle
2018-09-26 9:50 ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-26 22:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-27 1:19 ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-27 13:22 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-28 0:43 ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-28 16:10 ` Steve Muckle
2018-09-28 16:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-09-28 17:35 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-29 1:07 ` Wanpeng Li
2018-09-28 17:11 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-09-28 16:43 ` Joel Fernandes
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=b27b2354-cbfe-7c16-bdc1-d88ed3be90bd@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=Chris.Redpath@arm.com \
--cc=Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=Patrick.Bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=joaodias@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=migueldedios@google.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
--cc=smuckle@google.com \
--cc=tkjos@google.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®