On 11/2/23 09:01, Waiman Long wrote:
On 11/2/23 06:26, Juri Lelli wrote:
Hi Waiman,
On 01/11/23 13:59, Waiman Long wrote:
On 11/1/23 12:34, Michal Koutný wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:18:34AM -0400, Waiman Long
<longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The nr_deadline_tasks field in cpuset structure was introduced by
commit 6c24849f5515 ("sched/cpuset: Keep track of SCHED_DEADLINE task
in cpusets"). Unlike nr_migrate_dl_tasks which is only modified under
cpuset_mutex, nr_deadline_tasks can be updated under two different
locks - cpuset_mutex in most cases or css_set_lock in
cgroup_exit(). As
a result, data races can happen leading to incorrect
nr_deadline_tasks
value.
The effect is that dl_update_tasks_root_domain() processes tasks
unnecessarily or that it incorrectly skips dl_add_task_root_domain()?
The effect is that dl_update_tasks_root_domain() may return
incorrectly or
it is doing unnecessary work. Will update the commit log to reflect
that.
Since it is not practical to somehow take cpuset_mutex in
cgroup_exit(),
the easy way out to avoid this possible race condition is by making
nr_deadline_tasks an atomic_t value.
If css_set_lock is useless for this fields and it's going to be
atomic,
could you please add (presumably) a cleanup that moves
dec_dl_tasks_cs()
from under css_set_lock in cgroup_exit() to a (new but specific)
cpuset_cgrp_subsys.exit() handler?
But css_set_lock is needed for updating other css data. It is true
that we
can move dec_dl_tasks_cs() outside of the lock. I can do that in the
next
version.
Not sure if you had a chance to check my last question/comment on your
previous posting?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZSjfBWgZf15TchA5@localhost.localdomain/
Thanks for the reminder. I look at your comment again. Even though
dl_rebuild_rd_accounting() operates on css(es) via
css_task_iter_start() and css_task_iter_next(), the css_set_lock is
released at the end of it. So it is still possible that a task can
call cgroup_exit() after css_task_iter_next() and is being processed
by dl_add_task_root_domain(). Is there a helper in the do_exit() path
to nullify the dl_task() check. Or maybe we can also check for
PF_EXITING in dl_add_task_root_domain() under the pi_lock and do the
dl_task() check the under pi_lock to synchronize with
dl_add_task_root_domain(). What do you think?
I still believe that it doesn't really matter if we call
dec_dl_tasks_cs() inside or outside the css_set_lock.
Just curious. Does the deadline code remove the deadline quota of an
exiting task?
Regards,
Longman
