From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>,
Qais Yousef <Qais.Yousef@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched/deadline: Cleanup on_dl_rq() handling
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:20:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190731222046.5ff83259@sweethome> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c93f6c12-b804-99da-7e38-bbaf55fe7a1b@arm.com>
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 18:32:47 +0100
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
> >>>> static void dequeue_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> >>>> {
> >>>> + if (!on_dl_rq(dl_se))
> >>>> + return;
> >>>
> >>> Why allow double dequeue instead of WARN?
> >>
> >> As I was saying to Valentin, it can currently happen that a task
> >> could have already been dequeued by update_curr_dl()->throttle
> >> called by dequeue_task_dl() before calling __dequeue_task_dl(). Do
> >> you think we should check for this condition before calling into
> >> dequeue_dl_entity()?
> >
> > Yes, that's what ->dl_throttled is for, right? And !->dl_throttled
> > && !on_dl_rq() is a BUG.
>
> OK, I will add the following snippet to the patch.
> Although it's easy to provoke a situation in which DL tasks are
> throttled, I haven't seen a throttling happening when the task is
> being dequeued.
This is a not-so-common situation, that can happen with periodic tasks
(a-la rt-app) blocking on clock_nanosleep() (or similar) after
executing for an amount of time comparable with the SCHED_DEADLINE
runtime.
It might happen that the task consumed a little bit more than the
remaining runtime (but has not been throttled yet, because the
accounting happens at every tick)... So, when dequeue_task_dl() invokes
update_task_dl() the runtime becomes negative and the task is throttled.
This happens infrequently, but if you try rt-app tasksets with multiple
tasks and execution times near to the runtime you will see it
happening, sooner or later.
[...]
> @@ -1592,6 +1591,10 @@ static void __dequeue_task_dl(struct rq *rq,
> struct task_struct *p) static void dequeue_task_dl(struct rq *rq,
> struct task_struct *p, int flags) {
> update_curr_dl(rq);
> +
> + if (p->dl.dl_throttled)
> + return;
Sorry, I missed part of the previous discussion, so maybe I am missing
something... But I suspect this "return" might be wrong (you risk to
miss a call to task_non_contending(), coming later in this function).
Maybe you cound use
if (!p->dl_throttled)
__dequeue_task_dl(rq, p)
Or did I misunderstand something?
Thanks,
Luca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-31 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-26 8:27 [PATCH 0/5] sched/deadline: Fix double accounting in push_dl_task() & some cleanups Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 8:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched/deadline: Fix double accounting of rq/running bw in push_dl_task() Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 10:11 ` luca abeni
2019-07-29 8:59 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-29 16:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-26 13:30 ` luca abeni
2019-07-29 9:00 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-31 10:32 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 8:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched/deadline: Remove unused int flags from __dequeue_task_dl() Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-29 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 17:12 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 8:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched/deadline: Use __sub_running_bw() throughout dl_change_utilization() Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-29 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 17:21 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 8:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched/deadline: Cleanup on_dl_rq() handling Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 8:37 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-07-26 8:58 ` Qais Yousef
2019-07-26 9:20 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-26 9:32 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-07-29 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-30 6:41 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-30 8:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-31 17:32 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-31 20:20 ` luca abeni [this message]
2019-08-01 16:01 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 8:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched/deadline: Use return value of SCHED_WARN_ON() in bw accounting Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-26 10:18 ` luca abeni
2019-07-29 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 16:59 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-30 8:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-30 16:08 ` Dietmar Eggemann
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=20190731222046.5ff83259@sweethome \
--to=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=Qais.Yousef@arm.com \
--cc=Valentin.Schneider@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--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