lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Use RCU-sched in core-scheduling balancing logic
From
Date
On 2020/3/25 2:49, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:01:27AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/3/23 23:21, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:58:18PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> On 2020/3/14 8:30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:29:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>>>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an infrequent deadlock in
>>>>>> sched_core_balance(). Fix this by using the RCU-sched flavor instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This fixes the following spinlock recursion observed when testing the
>>>>>> core scheduling patches on PREEMPT=y kernel on ChromeOS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 14.998590] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [kworker/0:10:965]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The original could indeed deadlock, and this would avoid that deadlock.
>>>>> (The commit to solve this deadlock is sadly not yet in mainline.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>>>>
>>>> I saw this in dmesg with this patch, is it expected?
>>>>
>>>> [ 117.000905] =============================
>>>> [ 117.000907] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
>>>> [ 117.000911] 5.5.7+ #160 Not tainted
>>>> [ 117.000913] -----------------------------
>>>> [ 117.000916] kernel/sched/core.c:4747 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
>>>> [ 117.000918]
>>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>
>>> Sigh, this is because for_each_domain() expects rcu_read_lock(). From an RCU
>>> PoV, the code is correct (warning doesn't cause any issue).
>>>
>>> To silence warning, we could replace the rcu_read_lock_sched() in my patch with:
>>> preempt_disable();
>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>
>>> and replace the unlock with:
>>>
>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>> preempt_enable();
>>>
>>> That should both take care of both the warning and the scheduler-related
>>> deadlock. Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index a01df3e..7ff694e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -4743,7 +4743,6 @@ static void sched_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
>> int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> - raw_spin_unlock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));
>> for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
>> if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
>> break;
>> @@ -4754,7 +4753,6 @@ static void sched_core_balance(struct rq *rq)
>> if (steal_cookie_task(cpu, sd))
>> break;
>> }
>> - raw_spin_lock_irq(rq_lockp(rq));
>
> try_steal_cookie() does a double_rq_lock(). Would this change not deadlock
> with that?
>
Oh yes, missed double_rq_lock() inside, just want to keep local intr disabled
to avoid preemption. will try Paul's patch and report back.

Thanks,
-Aubrey

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-25 01:40    [W:0.386 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site