lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduler bug related to rq->skip_clock_update?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 01:14:47PM -0500, Bjoern B. Brandenburg wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:29 -0500, Bjoern B. Brandenburg wrote:
> > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 23:22 -0500, Bjoern B. Brandenburg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was under the impression that, as an invariant, tasks should not have
> > > > > TIF_NEED_RESCHED set after they've blocked. In this case, the idle load
> > > > > balancer should not mark the task that's on its way out with
> > > > > set_tsk_need_resched().
> > > >
> > > > Nice find.
> > > >
> > > > > In any case, check_preempt_curr() seems to assume that a resuming task cannot
> > > > > have TIF_NEED_RESCHED already set. Setting skip_clock_update on a remote CPU
> > > > > that hasn't even been notified via IPI seems wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Does the below fix it up for you?
> > >
> > > The patch definitely changes the behavior, but it doesn't seem to solve (all
> > > of) the root cause(s). The failsafe kicks in and clears the flag the next
> > > time that update_rq_clock() is called, but there can still be a significant
> > > delay between setting and clearing the flag. Right after boot, I'm now seeing
> > > values that go up to ~21ms.
> >
> > A pull isn't the only vulnerability. Since idle_balance() drops
> > rq->lock, so another cpu can wake to this rq.
> >
> > > Please let me know if there is something else that I should test.
> >
> > Sched: clear_tsk_need_resched() after NEWIDLE balancing
> >
> > idle_balance() drops/retakes rq->lock, leaving the previous task
> > vulnerable to set_tsk_need_resched() from another CPU. Clear it
> > after NEWIDLE balancing to maintain the invariant that descheduled
> > tasks are NOT marked for resched.
> >
> > This also confuses the skip_clock_update logic, which assumes that
> > the next call to update_rq_clock() will come nearly ĩmmediately after
> > being set. Make the optimization more robust by clearing before we
> > balance and in update_rq_clock().
>
> Unfortunately that doesn't seem to do it yet.
>
> After running five 'find /' instances to completion on the ARM platform,
> I'm still seeing delays close to 10ms.
>
> bbb@district10:~$ egrep 'cpu#|skip' /proc/sched_debug
> cpu#0
> .skip_clock_count : 89606
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9817250
> .skip_clock_max : 21992375
> cpu#1
> .skip_clock_count : 81978
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9582500
> .skip_clock_max : 17201750
> cpu#2
> .skip_clock_count : 74565
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9678000
> .skip_clock_max : 9879250
> cpu#3
> .skip_clock_count : 81685
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9300125
> .skip_clock_max : 14115750
>
> On the x86_64 host, I've changed to HZ=100 and am now also seeing delays
> close to 10ms after 'make clean && make -j8 bzImage'.
>
> bbb@koruna:~$ egrep 'cpu#|skip' /proc/sched_debug
> cpu#0, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 29703
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9999858
> .skip_clock_max : 40645942
> cpu#1, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 32696
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9959118
> .skip_clock_max : 35074771
> cpu#2, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 31742
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9788654
> .skip_clock_max : 24821765
> cpu#3, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 31123
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9858546
> .skip_clock_max : 44276033
> cpu#4, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 28346
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 10000775
> .skip_clock_max : 18681753
> cpu#5, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 29421
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9997656
> .skip_clock_max : 138473407
> cpu#6, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 27721
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9992074
> .skip_clock_max : 53436918
> cpu#7, 2493.476 MHz
> .skip_clock_count : 29637
> .skip_clock_recent_max : 9994516
> .skip_clock_max : 566793528
>
> These numbers were recorded with the below patch.
>
> Please let me know if I can help by testing or tracing something else.

Please just ignore my previous email and sorry for those noise.

I think I find the root cause after all-night sleep. :)

when we init idle task, we doesn't mark it on_rq.
My test show the concern is smoothed by below patch.

Thanks,
Yong

---
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index dc91a4d..21c76d9 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -5486,6 +5486,7 @@ void __cpuinit init_idle(struct task_struct *idle, int cpu)
__sched_fork(idle);
idle->state = TASK_RUNNING;
idle->se.exec_start = sched_clock();
+ idle->se.on_rq = 1;

cpumask_copy(&idle->cpus_allowed, cpumask_of(cpu));
/*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-05 06:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans