The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
To: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	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>,
	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: Fri, 23 May 2025 19:59:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250523115921.GB1240558@bytedance> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a0d4f499-1222-45da-a3ea-e9d445b81c87@linux.dev>

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 05:53:55PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> On 2025/5/23 17:42, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 05:13:35PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> > > On 2025/5/23 15:56, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:43:53AM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> > > > > On 2025/5/20 18:41, 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How about setting p->on_rq to 0 when throttled? which is the fact that
> > > > > the task is not on cfs queue anymore, does this method cause any problem?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On task group change/affinity change etc. if the throttled task is
> > > > regarded as !on_rq, then it will miss the chance to be enqueued to the
> > > > new(and correct) cfs_rqs, instead, it will be enqueued back to its
> > > > original cfs_rq on unthrottle which breaks affinity or task group
> > > 
> > > Yeah, this is indeed a problem, I was thinking to delete the throttled task
> > > from the cfs_rq limbo list, then add it to another cfs_rq limbo list or cfs_rq
> > > runnable tree based on the new cfs_rq's throttle status.
> > 
> > Only work when the task is still handled by fair :)
> > 
> > > 
> > > But it's much complex compared with your current method.
> > > 
> > > > settings. We may be able to do something in tg_unthrottle_up() to take
> > > > special care of these situations, but it seems a lot of headaches.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, for task group change, if the new task group does not have throttle
> > > > setting, that throttled task should be allowed to run immediately instead
> > > > of waiting for its old cfs_rq's unthrottle event. Similar is true when
> > > > this throttled task changed its sched class, like from fair to rt.
> > > > 
> > > > Makes sense?
> > > 
> > > Ok, the another problem of the current method I can think of is the PELT maintenance,
> > > we skip the actual dequeue_task_fair() process, which includes PELT detach, we just
> > > delete it from the cfs_rq limbo list, so it can result in PELT maintenance error.
> > > 
> > 
> > There are corresponding callbacks that handle this, e.g. for task group
> > change, there is task_change_group_fair() that handles PELT detach; for
> > affinity change, there is migrate_task_rq_fair() does that and for sched
> > class change, there is switched_from/to() does that.
> > 
> > Or do I miss anything?
> 
> migrate_task_rq_fair() only do it when !task_on_rq_migrating(p), which is wakeup migrate,
> because we already do detach in dequeue_task_fair() for on_rq task migration...
> You can see the DO_DETACH flag in update_load_avg() called from dequeue_entity().
>

Understood, thanks for catching this!

So the code was initially developed on top of v5.15 and there is a
detach in migrate_task_rq_fair():

	if (p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING) {
		/*
		 * In case of TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING we in fact hold the 'old'
		 * rq->lock and can modify state directly.
		 */
		lockdep_assert_rq_held(task_rq(p));
		detach_entity_cfs_rq(&p->se);
	}

But looks like it's gone now by commit e1f078f50478("sched/fair: Combine
detach into dequeue when migrating task") and I failed to notice this
detail...

Anyway, the task is already dequeued without TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING being
set when throttled and it can't be dequeued again, so perhaps something
like below could cure this situation?(just to illustrate the idea, not
even compile tested)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 89afa472299b7..dc2e9a6bf3fd7 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5868,6 +5868,9 @@ static void dequeue_throttled_task(struct task_struct *p, int flags)
	WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP);

	list_del_init(&p->throttle_node);
+
+       if (task_on_rq_migrating(p))
+               detach_task_cfs_rq(p);
}



  reply	other threads:[~2025-05-23 12:00 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
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 [this message]
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=20250523115921.GB1240558@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