Hi Dietmar!
On 14-Aug 17:44, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 08/06/2018 06:39 PM, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
[...]
> >+/**
> >+ * uclamp_cpu_put_id(): decrease reference count for a clamp group on a CPU
> >+ * @p: the task being dequeued from a CPU
> >+ * @cpu: the CPU from where the clamp group has to be released
> >+ * @clamp_id: the utilization clamp (e.g. min or max utilization) to release
> >+ *
> >+ * When a task is dequeued from a CPU's RQ, the CPU's clamp group reference
> >+ * counted by the task is decreased.
> >+ * If this was the last task defining the current max clamp group, then the
> >+ * CPU clamping is updated to find the new max for the specified clamp
> >+ * index.
> >+ */
> >+static inline void uclamp_cpu_put_id(struct task_struct *p,
> >+ struct rq *rq, int clamp_id)
> >+{
> >+ struct uclamp_group *uc_grp;
> >+ struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu;
> >+ unsigned int clamp_value;
> >+ int group_id;
> >+
> >+ /* No task specific clamp values: nothing to do */
> >+ group_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].group_id;
> >+ if (group_id == UCLAMP_NOT_VALID)
> >+ return;
> >+
> >+ /* Decrement the task's reference counted group index */
> >+ uc_grp = &rq->uclamp.group[clamp_id][0];
> >+#ifdef SCHED_DEBUG
> >+ if (unlikely(uc_grp[group_id].tasks == 0)) {
> >+ WARN(1, "invalid CPU[%d] clamp group [%d:%d] refcount\n",
> >+ cpu_of(rq), clamp_id, group_id);
> >+ uc_grp[group_id].tasks = 1;
> >+ }
> >+#endif
>
> This one indicates that there are some holes in your ref-counting.
Not really, this has been added not because I've detected a refcount
issue... but because it was suggested as a possible safety check in a
previous code review comment:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180720151156.GA31421@e110439-lin/
> It's probably easier to debug that there is still a task but the
> uc_grp[group_id].tasks value == 0 (A). I assume the other problem exists as
> well, i.e. last task and uc_grp[group_id].tasks > 1 (B)?
>
> You have uclamp_cpu_[get/put](_id)() in [enqueue/dequeue]_task.
>
> Patch 04/14 introduces its use in uclamp_task_update_active().
>
> Do you know why (A) (and (B)) are happening?
I've never saw that warning in my tests so far so, again, the warning
is there just to support testing/debugging when refcounting code
is/will be touched in the future. That's also the reason why is
SCHED_DEBUG protected.
> >+ uc_grp[group_id].tasks -= 1;
> >+
> >+ /* If this is not the last task, no updates are required */
> >+ if (uc_grp[group_id].tasks > 0)
> >+ return;
> >+
> >+ /*
> >+ * Update the CPU only if this was the last task of the group
> >+ * defining the current clamp value.
> >+ */
> >+ uc_cpu = &rq->uclamp;
> >+ clamp_value = uc_grp[group_id].value;
> >+ if (clamp_value >= uc_cpu->value[clamp_id])
>
> 'clamp_value > uc_cpu->value[clamp_id]' should indicate another
> inconsistency in the uclamp machinery, right?
Here you right, I would say that it should always be:
clamp_value <= uc_cpu->value[clamp_id]
since this matches the update done at the end of uclamp_cpu_get_id():
if (uc_cpu->value[clamp_id] < clamp_value)
uc_cpu->value[clamp_id] = clamp_value;
Perhaps we can add another safety check here, similar to the one
above, to have something like:
clamp_value = uc_grp[group_id].value;
#ifdef SCHED_DEBUG
if (unlikely(clamp_value > uc_cpu->value[clamp_id])) {
WARN(1, "invalid CPU[%d] clamp group [%d:%d] value\n",
cpu_of(rq), clamp_id, group_id);
#endif
if (clamp_value == uc_cpu->value[clamp_id])
uclamp_cpu_update(rq, clamp_id);
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
