From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/8] sched/deadline: Fix bandwidth accounting at all
 levels after offline migration
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:35:20 +0200
Message-ID: <20190722133520.GH25636@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20190719140000.31694-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20190719140000.31694-5-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <5da6abab-00ff-9bb4-f24b-0bf5dfcd4c35@arm.com>
 <20190722122828.GG25636@localhost.localdomain>
 <07a45864-07bf-aa5d-3ff7-a300326b9040@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <07a45864-07bf-aa5d-3ff7-a300326b9040@arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <cgroups.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tj@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luca.abeni@santannapisa.it, claudio@evidence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, bristot@redhat.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, lizefan@huawei.com, longman@redhat.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org

On 22/07/19 15:21, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 7/22/19 2:28 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 22/07/19 13:07, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> On 7/19/19 3:59 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> @@ -557,6 +558,38 @@ static struct rq *dl_task_offline_migration(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p
> >>>  		double_lock_balance(rq, later_rq);
> >>>  	}
> >>>  
> >>> +	if (p->dl.dl_non_contending || p->dl.dl_throttled) {
> >>> +		/*
> >>> +		 * Inactive timer is armed (or callback is running, but
> >>> +		 * waiting for us to release rq locks). In any case, when it
> >>> +		 * will file (or continue), it will see running_bw of this
> >>
> >> s/file/fire ?
> > 
> > Yep.
> > 
> >>> +		 * task migrated to later_rq (and correctly handle it).
> >>
> >> Is this because of dl_task_timer()->enqueue_task_dl()->task_contending()
> >> setting dl_se->dl_non_contending = 0 ?
> > 
> > No, this is related to inactive_task_timer() callback. Since the task is
> > migrated (by this function calling set_task_cpu()) because a CPU hotplug
> > operation happened, we need to reflect this w.r.t. running_bw, or
> > inactive_task_timer() might sub from the new CPU and cause running_bw to
> > underflow.
> 
> I was more referring to the '... it will see running_bw of thus task
> migrated to later_rq ...) and specifically to the HOW the timer
> callback can detect this.

Oh, it actually doesn't "actively" detect this condition. The problem is
that if it still sees dl_non_contending == 1, it will sub (from the
"new" rq to which task's running_bw hasn't been added - w/o this fix)
and cause the underflow.