From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Make rt_rq->pushable_tasks updates drive rto_mask
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:21:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230815142121.MoZplZUr@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230811112044.3302588-1-vschneid@redhat.com>
On 2023-08-11 12:20:44 [+0100], Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Sebastian noted that the rto_push_work IRQ work can be queued for a CPU
> that has an empty pushable_tasks list, which means nothing useful will be
> done in the IPI other than queue the work for the next CPU on the rto_mask.
>
> rto_push_irq_work_func() only operates on tasks in the pushable_tasks list,
> but the conditions for that irq_work to be queued (and for a CPU to be
> added to the rto_mask) rely on rq_rt->nr_migratory instead.
>
> nr_migratory is increased whenever an RT task entity is enqueued and it has
> nr_cpus_allowed > 1. Unlike the pushable_tasks list, nr_migratory includes a
> rt_rq's current task. This means a rt_rq can have a migratible current, N
> non-migratible queued tasks, and be flagged as overloaded / have its CPU
> set in the rto_mask, despite having an empty pushable_tasks list.
>
> Make an rt_rq's overload logic be driven by {enqueue,dequeue}_pushable_task().
> Since rt_rq->{rt_nr_migratory,rt_nr_total} become unused, remove them.
>
> Note that the case where the current task is pushed away to make way for a
> migration-disabled task remains unchanged: the migration-disabled task has
> to be in the pushable_tasks list in the first place, which means it has
> nr_cpus_allowed > 1.
>
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20230801152648._y603AS_@linutronix.de
> Reported-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> ---
> This is lightly tested, this looks to be working OK but I don't have nor am
> I aware of a test case for RT balancing, I suppose we want something that
> asserts we always run the N highest prio tasks for N CPUs, with a small
> margin for migrations?
I don't see the storm of IPIs I saw before. So as far that goes:
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
What I still observe is:
- CPU0 is idle. CPU0 gets a task assigned from CPU1. That task receives
a wakeup. CPU0 returns from idle and schedules the task.
pull_rt_task() on CPU1 and sometimes on other CPU observe this, too.
CPU1 sends irq_work to CPU0 while at the time rto_next_cpu() sees that
has_pushable_tasks() return 0. That bit was cleared earlier (as per
tracing).
- CPU0 is idle. CPU0 gets a task assigned from CPU1. The task on CPU0 is
woken up without an IPI (yay). But then pull_rt_task() decides that
send irq_work and has_pushable_tasks() said that is has tasks left
so….
Now: rto_push_irq_work_func() run once once on CPU0, does nothing,
rto_next_cpu() return CPU0 again and enqueues itself again on CPU0.
Usually after the second or third round the scheduler on CPU0 makes
enough progress to remove the task/ clear the CPU from mask.
I understand that there is a race and the CPU is cleared from rto_mask
shortly after checking. Therefore I would suggest to look at
has_pushable_tasks() before returning a CPU in rto_next_cpu() as I did
just to avoid the interruption which does nothing.
For the second case the irq_work seems to make no progress. I don't see
any trace_events in hardirq, the mask is cleared outside hardirq (idle
code). The NEED_RESCHED bit is set for current therefore it doesn't make
sense to send irq_work to reschedule if the current already has this on
its agenda.
So what about something like:
diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 00e0e50741153..d963408855e25 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -2247,8 +2247,23 @@ static int rto_next_cpu(struct root_domain *rd)
rd->rto_cpu = cpu;
- if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
+ if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
+ struct task_struct *t;
+
+ if (!has_pushable_tasks(cpu_rq(cpu)))
+ continue;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ t = rcu_dereference(rq->curr);
+ /* if (test_preempt_need_resched_cpu(cpu_rq(cpu))) */
+ if (test_tsk_need_resched(t)) {
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ continue;
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
return cpu;
+ }
rd->rto_cpu = -1;
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-15 14:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-11 11:20 [PATCH] sched/rt: Make rt_rq->pushable_tasks updates drive rto_mask Valentin Schneider
2023-08-15 14:21 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2023-09-11 10:54 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-09-20 13:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-09-25 8:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-09-25 12:09 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-09-25 8:55 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2023-09-25 10:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-25 12:21 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-09-28 21:21 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20230815142121.MoZplZUr@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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