From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, tj@kernel.org,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, mkoutny@suse.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 23/29] sched/deadline: Move a task's bandwidth when it must leave its CPU
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2026 19:41:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-203989@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261108185406.1549770-24-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
issues to consider:
- [Medium] sched/deadline: stale dl_bw_cpu on same-rd return in
dl_task_move_bw()
- [Medium] sched/deadline: missed bw move in migrate_task_rq_dl() on
task wakeup
--
commit 83356714a4dd1213bf9ceba0a7dd4eb657180f4e
Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
sched/deadline: Move a task's bandwidth when it must leave its CPU
This commit moves a deadline task's bandwidth to the destination CPU's root
domain in migrate_task_rq_dl() when the task leaves an inactive or
disallowed CPU.
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index bc31045e4686f..a35609a10ec5a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -2873,11 +2873,54 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int flags)
> return cpu;
> }
>
> -static void migrate_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int new_cpu __maybe_unused)
> +/*
> + * Move the bandwidth of @p to the root domain of @new_cpu. Count it there
> + * also if a rebuild left @p out. Add it even without room, since @p runs
> + * there. The caller holds the rq lock of @p, or its pi_lock for a wakeup.
> + */
> +static void dl_task_move_bw(struct task_struct *p, int new_cpu)
> +{
> + struct dl_bw *dl_b;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (dl_entity_is_special(&p->dl) || !p->dl.dl_bw)
> + return;
> +
> + guard(raw_spinlock)(&dl_departed_lock);
> + cpu = p->dl.dl_bw_cpu;
> + if (cpu < 0)
> + return;
> + if (p->dl.dl_bw_gen == dl_bw_gen) {
> + if (cpu_rq(cpu)->rd == cpu_rq(new_cpu)->rd)
> + return;
[Severity: Medium]
Does returning here without setting p->dl.dl_bw_cpu = new_cpu leave a stale
offline or disallowed CPU recorded when the task moves within the same root
domain?
During sched_cpu_deactivate(cpu), set_cpu_active(cpu, false) and
balance_push_set(cpu, true) run before cpuset_cpu_inactive(cpu) detaches
cpu from its root domain and rebuilds bandwidth accounting. When
balance_push() or try_to_wake_up() moves a task from the deactivating cpu
to an active new_cpu in the same root domain during that window,
cpu_rq(cpu)->rd == cpu_rq(new_cpu)->rd still holds, so p->dl.dl_bw_cpu is
left pointing to the inactive cpu. If the task then departs on new_cpu
before its 0-lag time, dl_clear_root_domains() and dl_add_task_root_domain()
see !cpu_active(p->dl.dl_bw_cpu) and drop the task's departing bandwidth
from new_cpu's root domain, or dl_task_release_bw() subtracts it from
def_root_domain once detach_destroy_domains() has run.
Updating p->dl.dl_bw_cpu = new_cpu before returning when the root domains
match would keep the recorded CPU valid.
> + dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
> + raw_spin_lock(&dl_b->lock);
> + __dl_sub(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw, dl_bw_cpus(cpu));
> + raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock);
> + }
> + dl_b = dl_bw_of(new_cpu);
> + raw_spin_lock(&dl_b->lock);
> + __dl_add(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw, dl_bw_cpus(new_cpu));
> + raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock);
> + p->dl.dl_bw_cpu = new_cpu;
> + p->dl.dl_bw_gen = dl_bw_gen;
> +}
> +
> +static void migrate_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int new_cpu)
> {
> + int cpu = task_cpu(p);
> struct rq_flags rf;
> struct rq *rq;
>
> + /*
> + * The task must leave a CPU that is no longer active, or that its
> + * mask no longer holds. The new CPU can then be in another root
> + * domain. Move the bandwidth there, as dl_task_offline_migration()
> + * does for a throttled task.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(!cpu_active(cpu) || !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)))
> + dl_task_move_bw(p, new_cpu);
[Severity: Medium]
Can this check miss the bandwidth move on wakeup when task_cpu(p) is an
active CPU that is in p->cpus_ptr by the time set_task_cpu() runs?
If a task sleeps on an active housekeeping CPU c0 (task_cpu(p) == c0) and
has its affinity and bandwidth moved to an isolated CPU c1 while asleep,
taking c1 offline leaves the task out of the rebuild (or counted in
def_root_domain). When the task wakes up in try_to_wake_up():
kernel/sched/core.c:select_fallback_rq() {
...
case cpuset:
if (cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(p)) {
state = possible;
break;
}
fallthrough;
case possible:
set_cpus_allowed_force(p, task_cpu_fallback_mask(p));
...
}
select_fallback_rq() widens p->cpus_ptr to include c0 before returning to
try_to_wake_up(). If it picks another housekeeping CPU c2, set_task_cpu()
calls migrate_task_rq_dl(p, c2) with cpu = c0, which is both active and now
in p->cpus_ptr, so dl_task_move_bw() is skipped. If select_fallback_rq()
picks c0 itself, try_to_wake_up() sees task_cpu(p) == cpu and skips
set_task_cpu() and migrate_task_rq_dl() altogether. The same happens when
sched_setaffinity() (with admission control disabled) moves a sleeping task
away from c0 across a rebuild and then back to a mask containing c0 before
wakeup. In each case the waking task runs in a root domain that does not
count its bandwidth.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261108185406.1549770-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com?part=23
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-08 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-08 18:53 [PATCH v5 00/29] sched/deadline: bandwidth accounting fixes and selftests Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 01/29] sched: Fix cpuset_mutex double unlock in __sched_setscheduler() Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 02/29] sched: Refuse SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS that would change the policy or the class Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 03/29] sched/deadline: Do not admit bandwidth for parameters that are kept Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 04/29] sched: Let a task boosted by a deadline waiter change its policy Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 05/29] sched/deadline: Do not divide by zero active CPUs of a root domain Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 06/29] sched: Take cpuset_mutex for a deadline policy change only with pi Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 07/29] sched/deadline: Do not lose a throttled task switched out and back Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 08/29] sched/deadline: Take a deadline boost from the waiter's rt_mutex node Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 09/29] sched/deadline: Reset the deadline and the runtime with the parameters Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 10/29] sched/deadline: Reset the donor's runtime at a deboost in the class Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 19:17 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 11/29] sched/deadline: Release the bandwidth of a task that leaves the class asleep Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 12/29] sched/deadline: Reject SCHED_DEADLINE on exited tasks Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 13/29] sched/deadline: Keep departing bandwidth across a root domain rebuild Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 14/29] sched/deadline: Fix this_bw when a task is changed during a remote wakeup Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 15/29] sched/deadline: Rebuild the root domains' accounting from the task list Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 16/29] sched/deadline: Record the root domain holding a task's bandwidth Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 17/29] sched/deadline: Leave a dying task out of a rebuild of the accounting Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 18/29] sched/deadline: Move a task's bandwidth only where room was made Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 19:30 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 19/29] cgroup/cpuset: Wait for an attach before rebuilding the sched domains Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 20/29] cgroup/cpuset: Give back the bandwidth an attach did not move Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 21/29] cgroup/cpuset: Reserve the bandwidth in the root domain a task moves to Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 19:32 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-08 18:53 ` [PATCH v5 22/29] sched/deadline: Make a rebuild use the CPU recorded with a task's bandwidth Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 19:25 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-08 18:54 ` [PATCH v5 23/29] sched/deadline: Move a task's bandwidth when it must leave its CPU Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 19:41 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-11-08 18:54 ` [PATCH v5 24/29] sched/deadline: Cancel the replenishment timer with the parameters Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:54 ` [PATCH v5 25/29] sched/deadline: Count the bandwidth a boosted task is given Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:54 ` [PATCH v5 26/29] sched/debug: Show the deadline bandwidth of each runqueue Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:54 ` [PATCH v5 27/29] selftests/sched: Add a test of SCHED_DEADLINE policy round trips Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:54 ` [PATCH v5 28/29] selftests/sched: Test SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth across a root domain rebuild Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-11-08 18:54 ` [PATCH v5 29/29] selftests/sched: Add a test of SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth accounting Mathieu Desnoyers
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=sashiko-outbox-203989@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tj@kernel.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®