* [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
@ 2015-10-15 11:09 Luca Abeni
2015-10-15 16:40 ` Juri Lelli
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Luca Abeni @ 2015-10-15 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Wanpeng Li, Juri Lelli, Luca Abeni
Commit 9d5142624256 ("sched/deadline: Reduce rq lock contention by
eliminating locking of non-feasible target") broke select_task_rq_dl()
and find_lock_later_rq(), because it introduced a comparison between
the local task's deadline and dl.earliest_dl.curr of the remote queue.
However, if the remote runqueue does not contain any SCHED_DEADLINE
task its earliest_dl.curr is 0 (always smaller than the deadline of
the local task) and the remote runqueue is not selected for pushing.
As a result, if an application creates multiple SCHED_DEADLINE threads,
they will never be pushed to runqueues that do not already contain
SCHED_DEADLINE tasks.
This patches fixes the issue by checking if dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0.
Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
---
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index fc8f010..0d86d60 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1066,8 +1066,9 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
int target = find_later_rq(p);
if (target != -1 &&
- dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
- cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr))
+ (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
+ cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr) ||
+ (cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0)))
cpu = target;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -1417,7 +1418,8 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_later_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
later_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
- if (!dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline,
+ if (later_rq->dl.earliest_dl.curr &&
+ !dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline,
later_rq->dl.earliest_dl.curr)) {
/*
* Target rq has tasks of equal or earlier deadline,
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
2015-10-15 11:09 [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks Luca Abeni
@ 2015-10-15 16:40 ` Juri Lelli
2015-10-15 20:10 ` Luca Abeni
2015-10-16 8:03 ` Luca Abeni
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Juri Lelli @ 2015-10-15 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Abeni, linux-kernel; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Wanpeng Li
Hi Luca,
On 15/10/15 12:09, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Commit 9d5142624256 ("sched/deadline: Reduce rq lock contention by
> eliminating locking of non-feasible target") broke select_task_rq_dl()
> and find_lock_later_rq(), because it introduced a comparison between
> the local task's deadline and dl.earliest_dl.curr of the remote queue.
> However, if the remote runqueue does not contain any SCHED_DEADLINE
> task its earliest_dl.curr is 0 (always smaller than the deadline of
> the local task) and the remote runqueue is not selected for pushing.
> As a result, if an application creates multiple SCHED_DEADLINE threads,
> they will never be pushed to runqueues that do not already contain
> SCHED_DEADLINE tasks.
> This patches fixes the issue by checking if dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
> ---
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index fc8f010..0d86d60 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1066,8 +1066,9 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
> int target = find_later_rq(p);
>
> if (target != -1 &&
> - dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
> - cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr))
> + (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
> + cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr) ||
> + (cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0)))
Can't we actually use dl.dl_nr_running here and below, so
that we won't incur any wraparound problem?
Thanks,
- Juri
> cpu = target;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -1417,7 +1418,8 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_later_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
>
> later_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>
> - if (!dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline,
> + if (later_rq->dl.earliest_dl.curr &&
> + !dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline,
> later_rq->dl.earliest_dl.curr)) {
> /*
> * Target rq has tasks of equal or earlier deadline,
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
2015-10-15 16:40 ` Juri Lelli
@ 2015-10-15 20:10 ` Luca Abeni
2015-10-16 8:03 ` Luca Abeni
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Luca Abeni @ 2015-10-15 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Lelli; +Cc: linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Wanpeng Li
Hi Juri,
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:40:19 +0100
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> On 15/10/15 12:09, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Commit 9d5142624256 ("sched/deadline: Reduce rq lock contention by
> > eliminating locking of non-feasible target") broke
[...]
> > cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr))
> > + (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
> > +
> > cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr) ||
> > +
> > (cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0)))
>
> Can't we actually use dl.dl_nr_running here and below, so
> that we won't incur any wraparound problem?
I copied the "earliest_dl.curr == 0" check from inc_dl_deadline():
if (dl_rq->earliest_dl.curr == 0 ||
dl_time_before(deadline, dl_rq->earliest_dl.curr)) {
/*
* If the dl_rq had no -deadline tasks, or if the new
task
* has shorter deadline than the current one on dl_rq,
...
And init_dl_rq() has a comment saying "zero means no -deadline tasks"...
But now I see what you mean: actually, find_lock_later_rq() contains
the correct version of the check few lines below the wrong check (after
acquiring the rq lock).
Tomorrow I'll try the version of the check with
later_rq->dl.dl_nr_running, and if it works I'll send an updated patch.
Thanks,
Luca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
2015-10-15 16:40 ` Juri Lelli
2015-10-15 20:10 ` Luca Abeni
@ 2015-10-16 8:03 ` Luca Abeni
2015-10-16 8:51 ` Juri Lelli
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Luca Abeni @ 2015-10-16 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Lelli, linux-kernel; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Wanpeng Li
On 10/15/2015 06:40 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 15/10/15 12:09, Luca Abeni wrote:
>> Commit 9d5142624256 ("sched/deadline: Reduce rq lock contention by
>> eliminating locking of non-feasible target") broke select_task_rq_dl()
[...]
>> - dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
>> - cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr))
>> + (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
>> + cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr) ||
>> + (cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0)))
>
> Can't we actually use dl.dl_nr_running here and below, so
> that we won't incur any wraparound problem?
Ok, I tested the patch with dl.dl_nr_running and if works for me...
I am going to send the updated patch in few minutes.
BTW, should we also use "dl_rq->dl_nr_running == 0" instead of
"dl_rq->earliest_dl.curr == 0" in inc_dl_deadline(), and remove the
comment from init_dl_rq()? If you think it is a good idea, I'll test this
additional change and send a patch in next week.
Thanks,
Luca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
2015-10-16 8:03 ` Luca Abeni
@ 2015-10-16 8:51 ` Juri Lelli
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Juri Lelli @ 2015-10-16 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Abeni, linux-kernel; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Wanpeng Li
Hi,
On 16/10/15 09:03, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 06:40 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> On 15/10/15 12:09, Luca Abeni wrote:
>>> Commit 9d5142624256 ("sched/deadline: Reduce rq lock contention by
>>> eliminating locking of non-feasible target") broke select_task_rq_dl()
> [...]
>>> - dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
>>> - cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr))
>>> + (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
>>> + cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr) ||
>>> + (cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0)))
>>
>> Can't we actually use dl.dl_nr_running here and below, so
>> that we won't incur any wraparound problem?
> Ok, I tested the patch with dl.dl_nr_running and if works for me...
>
> I am going to send the updated patch in few minutes.
>
Thanks!
> BTW, should we also use "dl_rq->dl_nr_running == 0" instead of
> "dl_rq->earliest_dl.curr == 0" in inc_dl_deadline(), and remove the
> comment from init_dl_rq()? If you think it is a good idea, I'll test this
> additional change and send a patch in next week.
>
Yeah, it seems we need that fix too.
Best,
- Juri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-10-16 8:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-10-15 11:09 [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks Luca Abeni
2015-10-15 16:40 ` Juri Lelli
2015-10-15 20:10 ` Luca Abeni
2015-10-16 8:03 ` Luca Abeni
2015-10-16 8:51 ` Juri Lelli
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox