On 11/05/2020 11:36, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:40, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> > wrote: >> >> On 08/05/2020 19:02, Tao Zhou wrote: >>> 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
[...] >> I'm not 100% sure if this is exactly what Tao pointed out here but I >> also had difficulties understanding understanding how this patch works: >> >> p.se >> | >> __________________| >> | >> V >> cfs_c -> tg_c -> se_c (se->on_rq = 1) >> | >> __________________| >> | >> v >> cfs_b -> tg_b -> se_b >> | >> __________________| >> | >> V >> cfs_a -> tg_a -> se_a >> | >> __________________| >> | >> V >> cfs_r -> tg_r >> | >> V >> rq >> > > In your example, which cfs_ rq has been throttled ? cfs_a ? Yes, cfs_a. 0xffffa085e48ce000 in Phil's trace. > >> (1) The incomplete update happens with cfs_c at the end of >> enqueue_entity() in the first loop because of 'if ( .... || >> cfs_bandwidth_used())' (cfs_b->on_list=0 since cfs_a is throttled) > > so cfs_c is added with the 1st loop Yes. >> (2) se_c breaks out of the first loop (se_c->on_rq = 1) >> >> (3) With the patch cfs_b is added back to the list. >> But only because cfs_a->on_list=1. > > hmm I don't understand the link between cfs_b been added and cfs_a->on_list=1 cfs_b, 0xffffa085e48ce000 is the one which is now added in the 2. loop. Isn't the link between cfs_b and cfs_a the first if condition in list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(): if (cfs_rq->tg->parent && cfs_rq->tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->on_list) to 'connect the branch' or not (default, returning false case)? > cfs_b is added with 2nd loop because its throttle_count > 0 due to > cfs_a been throttled (purpose of this patch) > >> >> But since cfs_a is throttled it should be cfs_a->on_list=0 as well. > > So 2nd loop breaks because cfs_a is throttled Yes. > The 3rd loop will add cfs_a Yes, but in the example, cfs_a->on_list=1, so we bail out of list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() early. I don't grasp how can cfs_a->on_list=1, when cfs_a is throttled and cfs_b, cfs_c are in a throttled hierarchy? >> throttle_cfs_rq()->walk_tg_tree_from(..., tg_throttle_down, ...) should >> include cfs_a when calling list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(). >> >> IMHO, throttle_cfs_rq() calls tg_throttle_down() for the throttled >> cfs_rq too. >> >> >> Another thing: Why don't we use throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq) instead of >> cfs_bandwidth_used() in enqueue_entity() as well? > > Mainly to be conservative because as this patch demonstrates, there > are a lot of possible use cases and combinations and I can't ensure > that it is always safe to use the throttled_hierarchy. Maybe this deserves a comment then.