From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Xi Wang <xii@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched/fair: Take care of group/affinity/sched_class change for throttled task
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 20:49:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250522124840.GC672414@bytedance> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250522120336.GI39944@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:03:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 06:41:07PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On task group change, for tasks whose on_rq equals to TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED,
> > core will dequeue it and then requeued it.
> >
> > The throttled task is still considered as queued by core because p->on_rq
> > is still set so core will dequeue it, but since the task is already
> > dequeued on throttle in fair, handle this case properly.
> >
> > Affinity and sched class change is similar.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 74bc320cbc238..4c66fd8d24389 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -5866,6 +5866,10 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq_work(struct callback_head *work)
> > update_rq_clock(rq);
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&p->throttle_node));
> > dequeue_task_fair(rq, p, DEQUEUE_SLEEP | DEQUEUE_SPECIAL);
> > + /*
> > + * Must not add it to limbo list before dequeue or dequeue will
> > + * mistakenly regard this task as an already throttled one.
> > + */
> > list_add(&p->throttle_node, &cfs_rq->throttled_limbo_list);
> > resched_curr(rq);
> > }
> > @@ -5881,6 +5885,20 @@ void init_cfs_throttle_work(struct task_struct *p)
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->throttle_node);
> > }
> >
> > +static void dequeue_throttled_task(struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Task is throttled and someone wants to dequeue it again:
> > + * it must be sched/core when core needs to do things like
> > + * task affinity change, task group change, task sched class
> > + * change etc.
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(p->se.on_rq);
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP);
> > +
> > + list_del_init(&p->throttle_node);
> > +}
> > +
> > static void enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
> > static int tg_unthrottle_up(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
> > {
> > @@ -6834,6 +6852,7 @@ static inline void sync_throttle(struct task_group *tg, int cpu) {}
> > static __always_inline void return_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) {}
> > static void task_throttle_setup_work(struct task_struct *p) {}
> > static bool task_is_throttled(struct task_struct *p) { return false; }
> > +static void dequeue_throttled_task(struct task_struct *p, int flags) {}
> >
> > static inline int cfs_rq_throttled(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > {
> > @@ -7281,6 +7300,11 @@ static int dequeue_entities(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > */
> > static bool dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > {
> > + if (unlikely(task_is_throttled(p))) {
> > + dequeue_throttled_task(p, flags);
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags & DEQUEUE_SAVE))))
> > util_est_dequeue(&rq->cfs, p);
>
> This is asymmetric -- dequeue removes it from that throttle list, but
> the corresponding enqueue will not add it back, what gives?
>
> Because now we have:
>
> p->on_rq=1
> p->throttle_node on list
>
> move_queued_task()
> deactivate_task()
> dequeue_task_fair()
> list_del_init(throttle_node)
> p->on_rq = 2
>
> activate_task()
> enqueue_task_fair()
> // nothing special, makes the thing runnable
> p->on_rq = 1;
>
> and we exit with a task that is on-rq and not throttled ?!?
>
> Why is this? Are we relying on pick_task_fair() to dequeue it again and
> fix up our inconsistencies? If so, that had better have a comment on.
Correct.
Does the following comment look OK?
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 89afa472299b7..4f4d64cf31fb1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -7147,6 +7147,10 @@ static int dequeue_entities(struct rq *rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
static bool dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
{
if (unlikely(task_is_throttled(p))) {
+ /*
+ * Task migrated to new rq will have its throttle work
+ * added if necessary in pick time.
+ */
dequeue_throttled_task(p, flags);
return true;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-22 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-20 10:41 [PATCH 0/7] Defer throttle when task exits to user Aaron Lu
2025-05-20 10:41 ` [PATCH 1/7] sched/fair: Add related data structure for task based throttle Aaron Lu
2025-05-21 8:48 ` Chengming Zhou
2025-05-20 10:41 ` [PATCH 2/7] sched/fair: prepare throttle path " Aaron Lu
2025-05-20 12:02 ` Florian Bezdeka
2025-05-21 6:37 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-21 11:51 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-21 9:01 ` Chengming Zhou
2025-05-21 9:21 ` [External] " Aaron Lu
2025-05-22 11:43 ` Chengming Zhou
2025-05-23 8:03 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-22 10:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-22 11:44 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-22 11:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-22 12:40 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-23 9:53 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-23 10:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-23 11:17 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-22 11:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-23 7:40 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-29 11:51 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-30 5:36 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-05-30 11:02 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-23 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-20 10:41 ` [PATCH 3/7] sched/fair: prepare unthrottle " Aaron Lu
2025-05-20 10:41 ` [PATCH 4/7] sched/fair: Take care of group/affinity/sched_class change for throttled task Aaron Lu
2025-05-22 12:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-22 12:49 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2025-05-23 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-26 11:36 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-27 6:58 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-27 11:19 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-05-27 11:54 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-27 14:16 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-05-23 2:43 ` Chengming Zhou
2025-05-23 7:56 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-23 9:13 ` Chengming Zhou
2025-05-23 9:42 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-23 9:53 ` Chengming Zhou
2025-05-23 11:59 ` Aaron Lu
2025-05-26 13:14 ` Chengming Zhou
2025-05-20 10:41 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched/fair: switch to task based throttle model Aaron Lu
2025-05-20 10:41 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched/fair: task based throttle time accounting Aaron Lu
2025-05-20 10:41 ` [PATCH 7/7] sched/fair: get rid of throttled_lb_pair() Aaron Lu
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=20250522124840.GC672414@bytedance \
--to=ziqianlu@bytedance.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=florian.bezdeka@siemens.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=xii@google.com \
--cc=zhouchuyi@bytedance.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).