From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, alex.shi@linaro.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] sched: Fix race in idle_balance()
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:11:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52FA0577.6080607@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM4v1pMEFTe6pQVDFzaXmqt_A3vw3tyj7Ewqib6zbzH++YzY3w@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/10/2014 10:24 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> HI Daniel,
>
> Isn't the only scenario where another cpu can put an idle task on
> our runqueue,
Well, I am not sure to understand what you meant, but I assume you are
asking if it is possible to have a task to be pulled when we are idle,
right ?
This patch fixes the race when the current cpu is *about* to enter idle
when calling schedule().
> in nohz_idle_balance() where only the cpus in
> the nohz.idle_cpus_mask are iterated through. But for the case
> that this patch is addressing, the cpu in question is not yet a part
> of the nohz.idle_cpus_mask right?
>
> Any other case would trigger load balancing on the same cpu, but
> we are preempt_disabled and interrupt disabled at this point.
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>> The scheduler main function 'schedule()' checks if there are no more tasks
>> on the runqueue. Then it checks if a task should be pulled in the current
>> runqueue in idle_balance() assuming it will go to idle otherwise.
>>
>> But the idle_balance() releases the rq->lock in order to lookup in the sched
>> domains and takes the lock again right after. That opens a window where
>> another cpu may put a task in our runqueue, so we won't go to idle but
>> we have filled the idle_stamp, thinking we will.
>>
>> This patch closes the window by checking if the runqueue has been modified
>> but without pulling a task after taking the lock again, so we won't go to idle
>> right after in the __schedule() function.
>>
>> Cc: alex.shi@linaro.org
>> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
>> Cc: mingo@kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 428bc9d..5ebc681 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6589,6 +6589,13 @@ void idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
>>
>> raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
>>
>> + /*
>> + * While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock.
>> + * A task could have be enqueued in the meantime
>> + */
>> + if (this_rq->nr_running && !pulled_task)
>> + return;
>> +
>> if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
>> /*
>> * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-11 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-06 23:10 [PATCH V2 0/3] sched: idle_balance() cleanup and fix Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-06 23:10 ` [PATCH V2 1/3] sched: Remove cpu parameter for idle_balance() Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-13 7:14 ` Alex Shi
2014-02-06 23:10 ` [PATCH V2 2/3] sched: Fix race in idle_balance() Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-10 9:24 ` Preeti Murthy
2014-02-11 11:11 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2014-02-13 7:45 ` Alex Shi
2014-02-13 10:10 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-02-13 10:22 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-13 7:46 ` Alex Shi
2014-02-06 23:10 ` [PATCH V2 3/3] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-10 10:04 ` Preeti Murthy
2014-02-11 12:07 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-02-13 10:14 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-02-13 7:53 ` Alex Shi
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=52FA0577.6080607@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=preeti.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.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