public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Vincent Donnefort <Vincent.Donnefort@arm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix detection of per-CPU kthreads waking a task
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 11:16:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8735nkcwov.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDX8sOfguZhJt5QV3j5D_JetcgncuF2w+uLa0XDk7UXkw@mail.gmail.com>

On 25/11/21 10:05, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 16:42, Vincent Donnefort
> <vincent.donnefort@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> select_idle_sibling() will return prev_cpu for the case where the task is
>> woken up by a per-CPU kthread. However, the idle task has been recently
>> modified and is now identified by is_per_cpu_kthread(), breaking the
>> behaviour described above. Using !is_idle_task() ensures we do not
>> spuriously trigger that select_idle_sibling() exit path.
>>
>> Fixes: 00b89fe0197f ("sched: Make the idle task quack like a per-CPU kthread")
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 945d987246c5..8bf95b0e368d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6399,6 +6399,7 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>>          * pattern is IO completions.
>>          */
>>         if (is_per_cpu_kthread(current) &&
>> +           !is_idle_task(current) &&
>>             prev == smp_processor_id() &&
>>             this_rq()->nr_running <= 1) {
>>                 return prev;
>
> AFAICT, this can't be possible for a symmetric system because it would
> have been already returned by other conditions.
> Only an asymmetric system can face such a situation if the task
> doesn't fit which is the subject of your other patch.
> so this patch seems irrelevant outside the other one
>

I think you can still hit this on a symmetric system; let me try to
reformulate my other email.

If this (non-patched) condition evaluates to true, it means the previous
condition

  (available_idle_cpu(target) || sched_idle_cpu(target)) &&
   asym_fits_capacity(task_util, target)

evaluated to false, so for a symmetric system target sure isn't idle.

prev == smp_processor_id() implies prev == target, IOW prev isn't
idle. Now, consider:

  p0.prev = CPU1
  p1.prev = CPU1

  CPU0                     CPU1
  current = don't care     current = swapper/1

  ttwu(p1)
    ttwu_queue(p1, CPU1)
    // or
    ttwu_queue_wakelist(p1, CPU1)

                          hrtimer_wakeup()
                            wake_up_process()
                              ttwu()
                                idle_cpu(CPU1)? no

                                is_per_cpu_kthread(current)? yes
                                prev == smp_processor_id()? yes
                                this_rq()->nr_running <= 1? yes
                                => self enqueue

                          ...
                          schedule_idle()

This works if CPU0 does either a full enqueue (rq->nr_running == 1) or just
a wakelist enqueue (rq->ttwu_pending > 0). If there was an idle CPU3
around, we'd still be stacking p0 and p1 onto CPU1.

IOW this opens a window between a remote ttwu() and the idle task invoking
schedule_idle() where the idle task can stack more tasks onto its CPU.

>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-25 11:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-24 15:42 [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix detection of per-CPU kthreads waking a task Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-24 16:28 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-25  9:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-25 11:16   ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2021-11-25 13:17     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-11-25 13:23     ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-25 15:30       ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-26  8:23         ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-26 13:32           ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-26 14:40             ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-26 16:49               ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-26 17:18                 ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-29 15:49                   ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-29 16:54                     ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-30 13:35                       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-11-30 15:42                       ` Vincent Guittot
2021-12-01 14:40                         ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-12-01 16:19                           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-11-29  8:36 ` [sched/fair] 8d0920b981: stress-ng.sem.ops_per_sec 11.9% improvement kernel test robot

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=8735nkcwov.mognet@arm.com \
    --to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=Vincent.Donnefort@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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