On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 05:27:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 17:12, Tao Zhou <zohooou...@zoho.com.cn> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:36:12PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning some more
> > >
> > > The recent patch, fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning)
> > > did not fully resolve the issues with the rq->tmp_alone_branch !=
> > > &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list warning in enqueue_task_fair. There is a case where
> > > the first for_each_sched_entity loop exits due to on_rq, having
> > > incompletely
> > > updated the list. In this case the second for_each_sched_entity loop can
> > > further modify se. The later code to fix up the list management fails to
> > > do
> > > what is needed because se no longer points to the sched_entity which broke
> > > out of the first loop.
> > >
> >
> > > Address this by calling leaf_add_rq_list if there are throttled parents
> > > while
> > > doing the second for_each_sched_entity loop.
> >
> > Thanks for your trace imformation and explanation. I
> > truely have learned from this and that.
> >
> > s/leaf_add_rq_list/list_add_leaf_cfs_rq/
> >
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pa...@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 02f323b85b6d..c6d57c334d51 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -5479,6 +5479,13 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct
> > > task_struct *p, int flags)
> > > /* end evaluation on encountering a throttled cfs_rq */
> > > if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq))
> > > goto enqueue_throttle;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * One parent has been throttled and cfs_rq removed from
> > > the
> > > + * list. Add it back to not break the leaf list.
> > > + */
> > > + if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
> > > + list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > > }
> >
> > I was confused by why the throttled cfs rq can be on list.
> > It is possible when enqueue a task and thanks to the 'threads'.
> > But I think the above comment does not truely put the right
> > intention, right ?
> > If throttled parent is onlist, the child cfs_rq is ignored
> > to be added to the leaf cfs_rq list me think.
> >
> > unthrottle_cfs_rq() follows the same logic if i am not wrong.
> > Is it necessary to add the above to it ?
>
> When a cfs_rq is throttled, its sched group is dequeued and all child
> cfs_rq are removed from leaf_cfs_rq list. But the sched group of the
> child cfs_rq stay enqueued in the throttled cfs_rq so child sched
> group->on_rq might be still set.
If there is a throttle of throttle, and unthrottle the child throttled
cfs_rq(ugly):
...
|
cfs_rq throttled (parent A)
|
|
cfs_rq in hierarchy (B)
|
|
cfs_rq throttled (C)
|
...
Then unthrottle the child throttled cfs_rq C, now the A is on the
leaf_cfs_rq list. sched_group entity of C is enqueued to B, and
sched_group entity of B is on_rq and is ignored by enqueue but in
the throttled hierarchy and not add to leaf_cfs_rq list.
The above may be absolutely wrong that I miss something.
Another thing :
In enqueue_task_fair():
for_each_sched_entity(se) {
cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
if (list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq))
break;
}
In unthrottle_cfs_rq():
for_each_sched_entity(se) {
cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
}
The difference between them is that if condition, add if
condition to unthrottle_cfs_rq() may be an optimization and
keep the same.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tau
> >
> > >
> > > enqueue_throttle:
> > > --
> > > 2.18.0
> > >
> > > V2 rework the fix based on Vincent's suggestion. Thanks Vincent.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > --
> > >
