linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, wanpeng.li@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:48:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160210134848.12e6a6f8@utopia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160210113258.GX11415@e106622-lin>

Hi,

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +0000
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
> From 62f70ca3051672dce209e8355cf5eddc9d825c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:41:09 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted
> bandwidth
> 
> Currently SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling policy tracks bandwidth of tasks
> that passed admission control at root_domain level only. This creates
> problems when such data structure(s) are destroyed, when we
> reconfigure scheduling domains for example.
> 
> This is part one of two changes required to fix the problem. In this
> patch we add per-rq tracking of admitted bandwidth. Tasks bring with
> them their bandwidth contribution when they enter the system and are
> enqueued for the first time. Contributions are then moved around when
> migrations happen and removed when tasks die.

I think this patch actually does two different things (addressing two
separate problems):
1) it introduces the tracking of per-rq utilization (used in your next
   patch to address the root domain issues)
2) it fixes a bug in the current utilization tracking mechanism.
   Currently, a task doing
	while(1) {
		switch to SCHED_DEADLINE
		switch to SCHED_OTHER
	}
   brings dl_b->total_bw below 0. Thanks to Juri for showing me this
   problem (and how to reproduce it) in a private email.
   This happens because when the task switches back from SCHED_DEADLINE
   to SCHED_OTHER, switched_from_dl() does not clear its deadline
   parameters (they will be cleared by the deadline timer when it
   fires). But dl_overflow() removes its utilization from
   dl_b->total_bw. When the task switches back to SCHED_DEADLINE, the
   if (new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw) check in dl_overflow() prevents
   __dl_add() from being called, and so when the task switches back to
   SCHED_OTHER dl_b->total_bw becomes negative.

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 9503d59..0ee0ec2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2432,7 +2432,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p,
> int policy, u64 new_bw = dl_policy(policy) ? to_ratio(period,
> runtime) : 0; int cpus, err = -1;
>  
> -	if (new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw)
> +	if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw)
>  		return 0;

This hunk actually fixes issue 2) mentioned above, so I think it should
be committed in a short time (independently from the rest of the
patch). And maybe is a good candidate for backporting to stable kernels?



			Thanks,
				Luca

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-02-10 12:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-08 12:45 [PATCH 0/2] sched/deadline: fix cpusets bandwidth accounting Juri Lelli
2016-02-08 12:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 11:32   ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 11:43     ` luca abeni
2016-02-10 11:58       ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-19 13:43         ` luca abeni
2016-02-19 14:20           ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-19 14:53             ` luca abeni
2016-02-19 14:57               ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-22 11:03               ` luca abeni
2016-02-22 10:57         ` [PATCH 0/3] cleanup " Luca Abeni
2016-02-22 10:57           ` [PATCH 1/4] Move some calls to __dl_{sub,add}_ac() from core.c to deadline.c Luca Abeni
2016-02-22 10:57           ` [PATCH 2/4] Move the remaining __dl_{sub,add}_ac() calls " Luca Abeni
2016-02-22 10:57           ` [PATCH 3/4] Remove dl_new Luca Abeni
2016-02-23 15:42             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-24 13:53               ` luca abeni
2016-02-25  9:46                 ` Juri Lelli
2016-03-03  9:03                   ` luca abeni
2016-03-03  9:28                     ` Juri Lelli
2016-03-03 14:23                       ` Steven Rostedt
2016-03-03 14:31                         ` luca abeni
2016-03-03 16:12                         ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 12:48     ` luca abeni [this message]
2016-02-10 13:42       ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth Juri Lelli
2016-02-23 15:48         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-23 15:51           ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 14:37     ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-10 16:27       ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 12:12         ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 12:22           ` luca abeni
2016-02-11 12:27             ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 12:40               ` luca abeni
2016-02-11 12:49                 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 13:05                   ` luca abeni
2016-02-11 14:25                     ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-11 17:10                       ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-12 17:05                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-12 17:19                           ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-24 19:17                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-24 21:46                             ` luca abeni
2016-02-25  7:53                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-25 10:07                             ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-25 10:20                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-24  9:20                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 21:48                       ` Luca Abeni
2016-02-08 12:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/deadline: rq_{online,offline}_dl for root_domain changes Juri Lelli

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=20160210134848.12e6a6f8@utopia \
    --to=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=wanpeng.li@hotmail.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).