From: Onkalo Samu <samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com>
To: mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org
Cc: "Onkalo Samu.P" <samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:42:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1295275365.12840.13.camel@kolo> (raw)
Hi
I believe that there are some problems in the scheduling when
the following happens:
- Normal priority process locks rt_mutex and sleeps while keeping it
locked.
- RT priority process blocks on the rt_mutex while normal priority
process is sleeping
This sequence can occur with I2C access when both normal priority
thread and irq-thread access the same I2C bus. I2C core
contains rt_mutex and I2C drivers can sleep with wait_for_completion.
I have seen following failure to happen (also with 2.6.37):
User process access some device handle or sysfs entry which finally
makes an I2C access. I2C core contains rt_mutex protection against
parallel access. Sometimes when the rt_mutex is unlocked, user process
is not running for a long time (several minutes). This can occur when
there are only small number of user processes running. In my test cases
there was only cat /dev/zero > /dev/null running at the background and
other process was accessing sysfs entry.
Example:
cat /dev/zero > /dev/null &
while [ 1 ] ; do
cat /sys/devices/platform/lis3lv02d/selftest
done
Selftest causes I2C accesses from both user process and irq-thread.
Based on my debugging following sequence occurs (single CPU
system):
1) There is some user process running at the background (like
cat /dev/zero..)
2) User process reads sysfs entry which causes I2C acccess
3) User process locks rt_mutex in the I2C-core
4) User process sleeps while it keeps rt_mutex locked
(wait_for_completion in I2C transfer function)
5) irq-thread is kicked to run
6) irq-thread tries to take rt_mutex which is allready locked by user
process
7) sleeping user process is promoted to irq-thread priority (RT class)
8) user process is woken up by completion mechanism and it finishes its
job
9) user process unlocks rt_mutex and is changed back to old priority and
scheduling class
10) irq-thread continues as expected
User process is stucked to at phase 9. Scheduler may skip that process
for a long time.
Based on my analysis vruntime calculations fails for the user process.
At phase 9, vruntime for that sched_entity is much bigger compared other
processes which leads to situation that it is not scheduled for a long
time.
Problem is that at phase 7) user process is sleeping and the rt_mutex
priority change control is done for the sleeping task. se.vruntime is
not modified and when the user process continues running se.vruntime
contains about twice the cfs_rq.min_runtime value.
Success case:
- user process locks rt_mutex
- irq-thread causes user process to be promoted to RT level while the
user process is in the running and "on_rq == 1" state
-> dequeue_task is called which modifies se.vruntime
dequeue_entity function:
if (!(flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP))
se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
When the process is moved back from rt to normal priority enqueue_task
updates vruntime again to correct value:
enqueue_entity:
if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP) || (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKING))
se->vruntime += cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
Failure case:
- user process locks rt_mutex
- and goes to sleep (wait_for_completion etc.)
- user process is dequeued to sleep state
-> vruntime is not updated in dequeue_entity
- irq-thread blocks to rt_mutex and user process is promoted to RT
priory
- User process wakes up and continues until it releases rt_mutex
-> User process is moved from rt-queue to cfs queue. WAKEUP / WAKING
flags are not set so vruntime is updated to incorrect value.
I have a simple dummy-driver which demonstrates the case. It is tested
with single CPU embedded system on 2.6.37.
I also have correction proposal, but it is quite possible that there is
better way to do this and it may be that I miss some case totally.
Scheduler is quite complex thing. I'll send patches for the test case
and for the proposal.
Br, Samu Onkalo
next reply other threads:[~2011-01-17 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-17 14:42 Onkalo Samu [this message]
2011-01-17 15:00 ` Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-17 15:15 ` samu.p.onkalo
2011-01-17 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-17 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-18 8:23 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-18 8:59 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-18 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-18 14:25 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-19 2:38 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-19 3:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 4:35 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-19 5:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 6:09 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-19 6:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 7:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-01-19 7:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-19 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-19 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-19 12:58 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-19 13:13 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-19 13:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-20 4:18 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 4:27 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 5:32 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 4:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-20 5:30 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 6:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-20 7:06 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 8:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-20 9:07 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 10:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-21 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-21 12:24 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-21 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-21 15:03 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-21 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-21 13:15 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 7:07 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-21 6:25 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-20 3:10 ` Yong Zhang
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=1295275365.12840.13.camel@kolo \
--to=samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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