From: kiln <806144828@qq.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
Yang Yang <yang.yang29@zte.com.cn>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [BUG] sched/delayacct: blkio_start recorded on the wrong task when a delayed task is blocked from pick
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2026 14:01:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <tencent_6CFB6E9B26A308DC2800D4059DF93FEC9706@qq.com> (raw)
Hi,
I think there's a delay accounting bug that came in with DELAY_DEQUEUE.
__block_task() calls delayacct_blkio_start(), and that helper always
writes current->delays->blkio_start. That's fine when __block_task() runs
from __schedule() for prev, but when the task was delayed and gets
blocked later from pick_next_task_fair() -> pick_next_entity() ->
dequeue_entities() -> __block_task(), current is whoever is scheduling on
that CPU, not p. So p's blkio_start is never set (or is left over from
an older sleep), and when the I/O completes ttwu() calls
delayacct_blkio_end(p), which adds local_clock() - blkio_start to p's
blkio_delay. For a fresh thread blkio_start is 0, so the thread gets
charged the whole time since boot in one go.
How I ran into it: per-thread blkio delay (taskstats, and field 42 of
/proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/stat) on some hosts showed threads that were a
couple of seconds old with ~7,070,000 s of block I/O delay, which was
exactly the host uptime. Always freshly created threads of a headless
Chrome (ThreadPoolForeg, Chrome_IOThread, Compositor and so on); Chrome
creates lots of short-lived threads that soon wait on ext4 journal I/O.
Kernel: a distro 6.6.102 kernel that carries the EEVDF / DELAY_DEQUEUE
backport (Alibaba Cloud Linux 4, 6.6.102-7.alnx4). I have not reproduced
it on mainline yet, but as far as I can tell the code there is the same:
__block_task() in kernel/sched/sched.h still calls delayacct_blkio_start()
with no task argument, in v6.12 and current master.
What I measured with bpftrace while starting Chrome a few times
(roughly 70 s per run):
kprobe:dequeue_entities { @in_de[tid] = 1; }
kretprobe:dequeue_entities { delete(@in_de[tid]); }
kprobe:__delayacct_blkio_start {
@start[@in_de[tid] ? "from dequeue_entities" : "from __schedule",
curtask->in_iowait] = count();
}
kprobe:__delayacct_blkio_end {
$p = (struct task_struct *)arg0;
if ($p->delays->blkio_start == 0) { @zero[$p->comm] = count(); }
}
With DELAY_DEQUEUE on (two runs):
from __schedule, current in_iowait=1: 11081 / 8691
from __schedule, current in_iowait=0: 0 / 0
from dequeue_entities, current in_iowait=1: 50 / 61
from dequeue_entities, current in_iowait=0: 52 / 103
blkio_end with blkio_start == 0: 3 / 10 (all Chrome threads)
With NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE (two runs, same workload):
from dequeue_entities: 0 / 2
blkio_end with blkio_start == 0: 0 / 0
starts vs ends: 12057 vs 12056, 9612 vs 9610
So on the dequeue_entities path about half of the starts land on a task
that isn't even in iowait. A kernel stack for one of the zero-start ends:
__delayacct_blkio_end+1
try_to_wake_up+1509
wake_bit_function+57
__wake_up_common+118
__wake_up_common_lock+129
wake_up_bit+127
journal_end_buffer_io_sync+48
end_bio_bh_io_sync+38
This looks like the mirror image of c96f5471ce7d ("delayacct: Account
blkio completion on the correct task"), which fixed the end side the same
way. The obvious fix would be to pass p down, something like
delayacct_blkio_start(p) setting p->delays->blkio_start (checking
p->delays rather than current->delays). Happy to send a patch if that
direction is okay.
Thanks
kiln
next reply other threads:[~2026-11-03 6:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-03 6:01 kiln [this message]
2026-11-03 6:10 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-11-03 8:21 ` Christian Loehle
2026-11-03 9:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-03 8:28 ` [PATCH] delayacct: Record blkio start on the correct task Jie Du
2026-11-03 9:07 ` Jie Du
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=tencent_6CFB6E9B26A308DC2800D4059DF93FEC9706@qq.com \
--to=806144828@qq.com \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=yang.yang29@zte.com.cn \
/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®