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

  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