lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/fair: Limit sched_cfs_period_timer loop to avoid hard lockup
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:30:42AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:

> In my defense here, all the fair.c imbalance pct code also uses 100 :)

Yes, I know, I hate on that too ;-) Just never got around to fixing
that.


> with the below:
>
> [ 117.235804] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 2492, cfs_quota_us = 143554)
> [ 117.346807] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 2862, cfs_quota_us = 164863)
> [ 117.470569] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 3286, cfs_quota_us = 189335)
> [ 117.574883] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 3774, cfs_quota_us = 217439)
> [ 117.652907] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 4335, cfs_quota_us = 249716)
> [ 118.090535] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 4978, cfs_quota_us = 286783)
> [ 122.098009] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 5717, cfs_quota_us = 329352)
> [ 126.255209] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 6566, cfs_quota_us = 378240)
> [ 126.358060] cfs_period_timer[cpu2]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 7540, cfs_quota_us = 434385)
> [ 126.538358] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 8660, cfs_quota_us = 498865)
> [ 126.614304] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 9945, cfs_quota_us = 572915)
> [ 126.817085] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 11422, cfs_quota_us = 657957)
> [ 127.352038] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 13117, cfs_quota_us = 755623)
> [ 127.598043] cfs_period_timer[cpu9]: period too short, scaling up (new cfs_period_us 15064, cfs_quota_us = 867785)
>
>
> Plus on repeats I see an occasional
>
> [ 152.803384] sched_cfs_period_timer: 9 callbacks suppressed

That should be fine, right? It's a fallback for an edge case and
shouldn't trigger too often anyway.

>> I'll rework the maths in the averaged version and post v2 if that makes sense.
>
> It may have the extra timer fetch, although maybe I could rework it so that it used the
> nsstart time the first time and did not need to do it twice in a row. I had originally
> reverted the hrtimer_forward_now() to hrtimer_forward() but put that back.

Sure; but remember, simpler is often better, esp. for code that
typically 'never' runs.

> Also, fwiw, this was reported earlier by Anton Blanchard in https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/3/1047

Bah, yes, I sometimes loose track of things :/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-15 17:04    [W:0.059 / U:1.248 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site