public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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








             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