Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/13] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:52:14 +0200 |
| |
On 8/8/19 8:52 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi Dietmar, > > On 07/08/19 18:31, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >> On 7/26/19 4:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> >> >> [...] >> >>> @@ -889,6 +891,8 @@ static void update_curr(struct cfs_rq *c >>> trace_sched_stat_runtime(curtask, delta_exec, curr->vruntime); >>> cgroup_account_cputime(curtask, delta_exec); >>> account_group_exec_runtime(curtask, delta_exec); >>> + if (curtask->server) >>> + dl_server_update(curtask->server, delta_exec); >>> } >> >> I get a lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock) related warning in start_dl_timer() >> when running the full stack. >> >> ... >> [ 0.530216] root domain span: 0-5 (max cpu_capacity = 1024) >> [ 0.538655] devtmpfs: initialized >> [ 0.556485] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] >> [ 0.561519] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] >> [ 0.566497] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] >> [ 0.571443] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] >> [ 0.576762] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[2] != rq[4] >> [ 0.581674] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[2] != rq[4] >> [ 0.586569] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [ 0.591220] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 2 at kernel/sched/deadline.c:916 start_dl_timer+0x160/0x178 >> [ 0.599686] Modules linked in: >> [ 0.602756] CPU: 2 PID: 2 Comm: kthreadd Tainted: G W 5.3.0-rc3-00013-ga33cf033cc99-dirty #64 >> [ 0.612620] Hardware name: ARM Juno development board (r0) (DT) >> [ 0.618560] pstate: 60000085 (nZCv daIf -PAN -UAO) >> [ 0.623369] pc : start_dl_timer+0x160/0x178 >> [ 0.627572] lr : start_dl_timer+0x160/0x178 >> [ 0.631768] sp : ffff000010013cb0 >> ... >> [ 0.715075] Call trace: >> [ 0.717531] start_dl_timer+0x160/0x178 >> [ 0.721382] update_curr_dl_se+0x108/0x208 >> [ 0.725494] dl_server_update+0x2c/0x38 >> [ 0.729348] update_curr+0x1b4/0x3b8 >> [ 0.732934] task_tick_fair+0x74/0xa88 >> [ 0.736698] scheduler_tick+0x94/0x110 >> [ 0.740461] update_process_times+0x48/0x60 >> ... >> >> Seems to be related to the fact that the rq can change: >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> index e4c14851a34c..5e3130a200ec 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> @@ -891,8 +891,17 @@ static void update_curr(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) >> trace_sched_stat_runtime(curtask, delta_exec, curr->vruntime); >> cgroup_account_cputime(curtask, delta_exec); >> account_group_exec_runtime(curtask, delta_exec); >> - if (curtask->server) >> + if (curtask->server) { >> + struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq); >> + struct rq *rq2 = curtask->server->rq; >> + >> + if (rq != rq2) { >> + printk("update_curr: rq mismatch rq[%d] != rq[%d]\n", >> + cpu_of(rq), cpu_of(rq2)); >> + } >> + >> dl_server_update(curtask->server, delta_exec); >> + } >> } >> >> ... > > Yeah, I actually noticed the same. Some debugging seems to point to > early boot spawning of kthreads. I can reliably for example attribute > this mismatch to ksoftirqd(s). It looks like they can avoid the > dl_server assignment in pick_next_task_dl() and this breaks things. > Still need to figure out why this happens and how to fix it, though.
Yeah, can confirm this:
... [0.556941] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] curr=[kthreadd, 39] [0.563722] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] curr=[netns, 39] [0.570179] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] curr=[netns, 39] [0.576606] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[0] != rq[4] curr=[netns, 39] [0.583708] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[2] != rq[1] curr=[kworker/2:1, 40] [0.590793] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[2] != rq[1] curr=[kworker/2:1, 40] [0.615096] update_curr: rq mismatch rq[2] != rq[1] curr=[kworker/2:1, 40] ... [0.626644] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 40 at kernel/sched/deadline.c:916 start_dl_timer+0x160/0x178 ...
| |