From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Connor O'Brien <connoro@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/11] sched: Add proxy execution
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 00:22:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3rEq7IFKjYA+/bj@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ec6ab79-9f0f-e14b-dd06-d2840a1bf71a@arm.com>
Hello Dietmar,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 06:09:26PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 31/10/2022 19:00, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> On 29/10/2022 05:31, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>> Hello Dietmar,
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 24, 2022, at 6:13 AM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 03/10/2022 23:44, Connor O'Brien wrote:
> >>>>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>> + rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
> >>>>> + raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't we run into rq_pin_lock()'s:
> >>>>
> >>>> SCHED_WARN_ON(rq->balance_callback && rq->balance_callback !=
> >>>> &balance_push_callback)
> >>>>
> >>>> by releasing rq lock between queue_balance_callback(, push_rt/dl_tasks)
> >>>> and __balance_callbacks()?
> >>>
> >>> Apologies, I’m a bit lost here. The code you are responding to inline does not call rq_pin_lock, it calls rq_unpin_lock. So what scenario does the warning trigger according to you?
> >>
> >> True, but the code which sneaks in between proxy()'s
> >> raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq) and raw_spin_rq_lock(rq) does.
> >>
> >
> > Got it now, thanks a lot for clarifying. Can this be fixed by do a
> > __balance_callbacks() at:
>
> I tried the:
>
> head = splice_balance_callbacks(rq)
> task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> ...
> balance_callbacks(rq, head);
>
> separation known from __sched_setscheduler() in __schedule() (right
> after pick_next_task()) but it doesn't work. Lot of `BUG: scheduling
> while atomic:`
How about something like the following? This should exclude concurrent
balance callback queues from other CPUs and let us release the rq lock early
in proxy(). I ran locktorture with your diff to make writer threads RT, and I
cannot reproduce any crash with it:
---8<-----------------------
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: [PATCH] Exclude balance callback queuing during proxy's migrate
In commit 565790d28b1e ("sched: Fix balance_callback()"), it is clear that rq
lock needs to be held when __balance_callbacks() in schedule() is called.
However, it is possible that because rq lock is dropped in proxy(), another
CPU, say in __sched_setscheduler() can queue balancing callbacks and cause
issues.
To remedy this, exclude balance callback queuing on other CPUs, during the
proxy().
Reported-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
kernel/sched/sched.h | 3 +++
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 88a5fa34dc06..f1dac21fcd90 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -6739,6 +6739,10 @@ proxy(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, struct rq_flags *rf)
p->wake_cpu = wake_cpu;
}
+ // Prevent other CPUs from queuing balance callbacks while we migrate
+ // tasks in the migrate_list with the rq lock released.
+ raw_spin_lock(&rq->balance_lock);
+
rq_unpin_lock(rq, rf);
raw_spin_rq_unlock(rq);
raw_spin_rq_lock(that_rq);
@@ -6758,7 +6762,18 @@ proxy(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, struct rq_flags *rf)
}
raw_spin_rq_unlock(that_rq);
+
+ // This may make lockdep unhappy as we acquire rq->lock with balance_lock
+ // held. But that should be a false positive, as the following pattern
+ // happens only on the current CPU with interrupts disabled:
+ // rq_lock()
+ // balance_lock();
+ // rq_unlock();
+ // rq_lock();
raw_spin_rq_lock(rq);
+
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rq->balance_lock);
+
rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
return NULL; /* Retry task selection on _this_ CPU. */
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 354e75587fed..932d32bf9571 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1057,6 +1057,7 @@ struct rq {
unsigned long cpu_capacity_orig;
struct callback_head *balance_callback;
+ raw_spinlock_t balance_lock;
unsigned char nohz_idle_balance;
unsigned char idle_balance;
@@ -1748,6 +1749,7 @@ queue_balance_callback(struct rq *rq,
void (*func)(struct rq *rq))
{
lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
+ raw_spin_lock(&rq->balance_lock);
/*
* Don't (re)queue an already queued item; nor queue anything when
@@ -1760,6 +1762,7 @@ queue_balance_callback(struct rq *rq,
head->func = (void (*)(struct callback_head *))func;
head->next = rq->balance_callback;
rq->balance_callback = head;
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rq->balance_lock);
}
#define rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(p) \
--
2.38.1.584.g0f3c55d4c2-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-21 0:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-03 21:44 [RFC PATCH 00/11] Reviving the Proxy Execution Series Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] locking/ww_mutex: Remove wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock Connor O'Brien
2022-10-04 16:01 ` Waiman Long
2022-10-12 23:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-20 18:43 ` Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] locking/mutex: Rework task_struct::blocked_on Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] kernel/locking: Add p->blocked_on wrapper Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] locking/mutex: make mutex::wait_lock irq safe Connor O'Brien
2022-10-13 4:30 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] sched: Split scheduler execution context Connor O'Brien
2022-10-14 17:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-19 17:17 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-10-20 18:43 ` Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] kernel/locking: Expose mutex_owner() Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] sched: Add proxy execution Connor O'Brien
2022-10-12 1:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-12 9:46 ` Juri Lelli
2022-10-14 17:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-15 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-16 20:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-10-17 4:03 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-17 7:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-24 22:33 ` Qais Yousef
2022-10-25 11:19 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-25 22:10 ` Qais Yousef
2022-10-15 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-15 15:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-15 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-15 15:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-24 10:13 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-10-29 3:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-31 16:39 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-10-31 18:00 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-04 17:09 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-11-21 0:22 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2022-11-21 1:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-21 3:59 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-22 18:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-01-09 8:51 ` Chen Yu
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] sched: Fixup task CPUs for potential proxies Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:44 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] sched/rt: Fix proxy/current (push,pull)ability Connor O'Brien
2022-10-10 11:40 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-10-14 22:32 ` Connor O'Brien
2022-10-19 17:05 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-10-20 13:30 ` Juri Lelli
2022-10-20 16:14 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-10-21 2:22 ` Connor O'Brien
2022-10-03 21:45 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] torture: support randomized shuffling for proxy exec testing Connor O'Brien
2022-11-12 16:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-14 20:44 ` Connor O'Brien
2022-11-15 16:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-03 21:45 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] locktorture: support nested mutexes Connor O'Brien
2022-10-06 9:59 ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] Reviving the Proxy Execution Series Juri Lelli
2022-10-06 10:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-06 12:14 ` Juri Lelli
2022-10-15 15:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-17 2:23 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-19 11:43 ` Qais Yousef
2022-10-19 12:23 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-19 13:41 ` Juri Lelli
2022-10-19 13:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-19 19:30 ` Qais Yousef
2022-10-20 8:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-17 3:25 ` Chengming Zhou
2022-10-17 3:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-10-17 4:26 ` Chengming Zhou
2022-10-17 12:27 ` Joel Fernandes
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=Y3rEq7IFKjYA+/bj@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=connoro@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).