From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: Allow migrating kthreads into online but inactive CPUs
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:52:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170725175225.GT3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170725165821.cejhb7v2s3kecems@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:58:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 08:10:08AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Per-cpu workqueues have been tripping CPU affinity sanity checks while
> > a CPU is being offlined. A per-cpu kworker ends up running on a CPU
> > which isn't its target CPU while the CPU is online but inactive.
> >
> > While the scheduler allows kthreads to wake up on an online but
> > inactive CPU, it doesn't allow a running kthread to be migrated to
> > such a CPU, which leads to an odd situation where setting affinity on
> > a sleeping and running kthread leads to different results.
> >
> > Each mem-reclaim workqueue has one rescuer which guarantees forward
> > progress and the rescuer needs to bind itself to the CPU which needs
> > help in making forward progress; however, due to the above issue,
> > while set_cpus_allowed_ptr() succeeds, the rescuer doesn't end up on
> > the correct CPU if the CPU is in the process of going offline,
> > tripping the sanity check and executing the work item on the wrong
> > CPU.
> >
> > This patch updates __migrate_task() so that kthreads can be migrated
> > into an inactive but online CPU.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Reported-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Reported-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>
> Hmm.. so the rules for running on !active && online are slightly
> stricter than just being a kthread, how about the below, does that work
> too?
I will give this a shot over night, Pacific Time, but the bug occurs
with such low probability that a pass won't mean much. :-(
Thanx, Paul
> kernel/sched/core.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index d3d39a283beb..59b667c16826 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -894,6 +894,22 @@ void check_preempt_curr(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +
> +/*
> + * Per-CPU kthreads are allowed to run on !actie && online CPUs, see
> + * __set_cpus_allowed_ptr() and select_fallback_rq().
> + */
> +static inline bool is_per_cpu_kthread(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + if (!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed != 1)
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * This is how migration works:
> *
> @@ -951,8 +967,13 @@ struct migration_arg {
> static struct rq *__migrate_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf,
> struct task_struct *p, int dest_cpu)
> {
> - if (unlikely(!cpu_active(dest_cpu)))
> - return rq;
> + if (is_per_cpu_kthread(p)) {
> + if (unlikely(!cpu_online(dest_cpu)))
> + return rq;
> + } else {
> + if (unlikely(!cpu_active(dest_cpu)))
> + return rq;
> + }
>
> /* Affinity changed (again). */
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(dest_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed))
> @@ -1482,10 +1503,13 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> for (;;) {
> /* Any allowed, online CPU? */
> for_each_cpu(dest_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed) {
> - if (!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && !cpu_active(dest_cpu))
> - continue;
> - if (!cpu_online(dest_cpu))
> - continue;
> + if (is_per_cpu_kthread(p)) {
> + if (!cpu_online(dest_cpu))
> + continue;
> + } else {
> + if (!cpu_active(dest_cpu))
> + continue;
> + }
> goto out;
> }
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-25 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-17 12:10 [PATCH RFC] sched: Allow migrating kthreads into online but inactive CPUs Tejun Heo
2017-06-17 12:11 ` simple repro case Tejun Heo
2017-06-21 14:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-06-21 17:59 ` Tejun Heo
2017-07-25 16:58 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Allow migrating kthreads into online but inactive CPUs Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-25 17:52 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2017-07-26 12:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-05-31 12:28 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched/core: Fix rules for running on online && !active CPUs tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
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=20170725175225.GT3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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