lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 06:45:27PM +0000, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> >> - Processes with different tags can still share the core
>
> > I may have missed something... Could you explain this statement?
>
> > This, to me, is the whole point of the patch series. If it's not
> > doing this then ... what?
>
> What I meant was, the patch needs some more work to be accurate.
> There are some race conditions where the core violation can still
> happen. In our testing, we saw around 1 to 5% of the time being
> shared with incompatible processes. One example of this happening
> is as follows(let cpu 0 and 1 be siblings):
> - cpu 0 selects a process with a cookie
> - cpu 1 selects a higher priority process without cookie
> - Selection process restarts for cpu 0 and it might select a
> process with cookie but with lesser priority.
> - Since it is lesser priority, the logic in pick_next_task
> doesn't compare again for the cookie(trusts pick_task) and
> proceeds.
>
> This is one of the scenarios that we saw from traces, but there
> might be other race conditions as well. Fix seems a little
> involved and We are working on that.

This is what I have used to make sure no two unmatched tasks being
scheduled on the same core: (on top of v1, I thinks it's easier to just
show the diff instead of commenting on various places of the patches :-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index cb24a0141e57..0cdb1c6a00a4 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -186,6 +186,10 @@ struct task_struct *sched_core_find(struct rq *rq, unsigned long cookie)
*/
match = idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq);

+ /* TODO: untagged tasks are not in the core tree */
+ if (!cookie)
+ goto out;
+
while (node) {
node_task = container_of(node, struct task_struct, core_node);

@@ -199,6 +203,7 @@ struct task_struct *sched_core_find(struct rq *rq, unsigned long cookie)
}
}

+out:
return match;
}

@@ -3634,6 +3639,8 @@ static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
}

// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions
+// when max is unset, return class_pick;
+// when max is set, return cookie_pick unless class_pick has higher priority.
static struct task_struct *
pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *max)
{
@@ -3652,7 +3659,19 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *ma
}

class_pick = class->pick_task(rq);
- if (!cookie)
+ /*
+ * we can only return class_pick here when max is not set.
+ *
+ * when max is set and cookie is 0, we still have to check if
+ * class_pick's cookie matches with max, or we can end up picking
+ * an unmacthed task. e.g. max is untagged and class_pick here
+ * is tagged.
+ */
+ if (!cookie && !max)
+ return class_pick;
+
+ /* in case class_pick matches with max, no need to check priority */
+ if (class_pick && cookie_match(class_pick, max))
return class_pick;

cookie_pick = sched_core_find(rq, cookie);
@@ -3663,8 +3682,11 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *ma
* If class > max && class > cookie, it is the highest priority task on
* the core (so far) and it must be selected, otherwise we must go with
* the cookie pick in order to satisfy the constraint.
+ *
+ * class_pick and cookie_pick are on the same cpu so use cpu_prio_less()
+ * max and class_pick are on different cpus so use core_prio_less()
*/
- if (cpu_prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) && cpu_prio_less(max, class_pick))
+ if (cpu_prio_less(cookie_pick, class_pick) && core_prio_less(max, class_pick))
return class_pick;

return cookie_pick;
@@ -3731,8 +3753,17 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)

rq_i->core_pick = NULL;

- if (i != cpu)
+ if (i != cpu) {
update_rq_clock(rq_i);
+ /*
+ * we are going to pick tasks for both cpus, if our
+ * sibling is idle and we have core_cookie set, now
+ * is the time to clear/reset it so that we can do
+ * an unconstained pick.
+ */
+ if (is_idle_task(rq_i->curr) && rq_i->core->core_cookie)
+ rq_i->core->core_cookie = 0;
+ }
}

/*
@@ -3794,20 +3825,42 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
*
* NOTE: this is a linear max-filter and is thus bounded
* in execution time.
+ *
+ * The fact that pick_task() returns p with a different
+ * cookie means p has higher priority and we need to
+ * replace max with p.
*/
- if (!max || core_prio_less(max, p)) {
+ if (!max || !cookie_match(max, p)) {
struct task_struct *old_max = max;

rq->core->core_cookie = p->core_cookie;
max = p;
trace_printk("max: %s/%d %lx\n", max->comm, max->pid, max->core_cookie);

- if (old_max && !cookie_match(old_max, p)) {
+ if (old_max) {
for_each_cpu(j, smt_mask) {
if (j == i)
continue;

cpu_rq(j)->core_pick = NULL;
+
+ /*
+ * if max is untagged, then core_cookie
+ * is zero and siblig can do a wrongly
+ * unconstained pick. avoid that by doing
+ * pick directly here. since there is no
+ * untagged tasks in core tree, just
+ * use idle for our sibling.
+ * TODO: sibling may pick an untagged task.
+ */
+ if (max->core_cookie)
+ cpu_rq(j)->core_pick = NULL;
+ else {
+ cpu_rq(j)->core_pick = idle_sched_class.pick_task(cpu_rq(j));
+ occ = 1;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
}
occ = 1;
goto again;
@@ -3817,6 +3870,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
next_class:;
}

+out:
rq->core->core_pick_seq = rq->core->core_task_seq;

/*
@@ -3834,6 +3888,17 @@ next_class:;

rq_i->core_pick->core_occupation = occ;

+ /* make sure we didn't break L1TF */
+ if (!is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick) &&
+ rq_i->core_pick->core_cookie != rq_i->core->core_cookie) {
+ trace_printk("cpu%d: cookie mismatch. %s/%d/0x%lx/0x%lx\n",
+ rq_i->cpu, rq_i->core_pick->comm,
+ rq_i->core_pick->pid,
+ rq_i->core_pick->core_cookie,
+ rq_i->core->core_cookie);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+ }
+
if (i == cpu)
continue;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-29 05:54    [W:0.100 / U:27.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site