From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:38174 "EHLO
        mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1732315AbeGTQew (ORCPT
        <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:34:52 -0400
Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id v14-v6so11742273wro.5
        for <stable@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:45:56 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] sched/deadline: Update rq_clock of later_rq when
 pushing a task
Message-ID: <20180720154556.GE3642@localhost.localdomain>
References: <ca31d073a4788acf0684a8b255f14fea775ccf20.1532077269.git.bristot@redhat.com>
 <20180720124615.GM2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180720124821.GB2512@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180720125329.GD3642@localhost.localdomain>
 <183815b1-50dd-9027-31df-a18a604719e8@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <183815b1-50dd-9027-31df-a18a604719e8@redhat.com>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On 20/07/18 17:36, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 07/20/2018 02:53 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 20/07/18 14:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:46:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:16:30AM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> >>>> index fbfc3f1d368a..8b50eea4b607 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> >>>> @@ -2090,8 +2090,14 @@ static int push_dl_task(struct rq *rq)
> >>>>  	sub_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &rq->dl);
> >>>>  	set_task_cpu(next_task, later_rq->cpu);
> >>>>  	add_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	/*
> >>>> +	 * Update the later_rq clock here, because the clock is used
> >>>> +	 * by the cpufreq_update_util() inside __add_running_bw().
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>> +	update_rq_clock(later_rq);
> >>>>  	add_running_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
> >>>> -	activate_task(later_rq, next_task, 0);
> >>>> +	activate_task(later_rq, next_task, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK);
> >>>>  	ret = 1;
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	resched_curr(later_rq);
> >>>
> >>> Why isn't push_rt_task() affected by the very same issue?
> >>
> >> Aah, I see, its the add_running_bw() think; for which RT doesn't have a
> >> counter-part.
> > 
> > Right, but doesn't enqueue_top_rt_rq end-up being called by activate_
> > task on lowest_rq? Mmm.
> 
> 
> AFAICS we have:
> 
> push_rt_task() {
> 	activate_task() {
> 		enqueue_task(,,(flags=0)) {
> 		        if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK))
> 	        	        update_rq_clock(rq);
> 			enqueue_task_rt() {
> 				enqueue_rt_entity() {
> 					enqueue_top_rt_rq();
> 			}
> 		}
> 	}
> }
> 
> So we will have the clock updated already...
> 
> Am I missing something?

Ah, indeed.