On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 10:12, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 20:07, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/03/2020 18:29, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > When a cfs rq is throttled, the latter and its child are removed from the
> > > leaf list but their nr_running is not changed which includes staying higher
> > > than 1. When a task is enqueued in this throttled branch, the cfs rqs must
> > > be added back in order to ensure correct ordering in the list but this can
> > > only happens if nr_running == 1.
> > > When cfs bandwidth is used, we call unconditionnaly list_add_leaf_cfs_rq()
> > > when enqueuing an entity to make sure that the complete branch will be
> > > added.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx #v5.1+
> > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index fcc968669aea..bdc5bb72ab31 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -4117,6 +4117,7 @@ static inline void check_schedstat_required(void)
> > > #endif
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline bool cfs_bandwidth_used(void);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * MIGRATION
> > > @@ -4195,10 +4196,16 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> > > __enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> > > se->on_rq = 1;
> > >
> > > - if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * When bandwidth control is enabled, cfs might have been removed because of
> > > + * a parent been throttled but cfs->nr_running > 1. Try to add it
> > > + * unconditionnally.
> > > + */
> > > + if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1 || cfs_bandwidth_used())
> > > list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > > +
> > > + if (cfs_rq->nr_running == 1)
> > > check_enqueue_throttle(cfs_rq);
> > > - }
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void __clear_buddies_last(struct sched_entity *se)
> >
> > I experimented with an rt-app based setup on Arm64 Juno (6 CPUs):
> >
> > cgroupv1 hierarchy A/B/C, all CFS bw controlled (30,000/100,000)
> >
> > I create A/B/C outside rt-app so I can have rt-app runs with an already
> > existing taskgroup hierarchy. There is a 4 secs gap between consecutive
> > rt-app runs.
> >
> > The rt-app files contains 6 periodic CFS tasks (25,000/100,000) running
> > in /A/B/C, /A/B, /A (3 rt-app task phases).
> >
> > I get w/ the patch (and the debug patch applied to unthrottle_cfs_rq()):
> >
> > root@juno:~#
> > [ 409.236925] CPU1 path=/A/B on_list=1 nr_running=1 throttled=1
> > [ 409.242682] CPU1 path=/A on_list=0 nr_running=0 throttled=1
> > [ 409.248260] CPU1 path=/ on_list=1 nr_running=0 throttled=0
> > [ 409.253748] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 409.258365] rq->tmp_alone_branch != &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list
> > [ 409.258382] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/fair.c:380
> > unthrottle_cfs_rq+0x21c/0x2a8
> > ...
> > [ 409.275196] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.6.0-rc3-dirty #62
> > [ 409.281990] Hardware name: ARM Juno development board (r0) (DT)
> > ...
> > [ 409.384644] Call trace:
> > [ 409.387089] unthrottle_cfs_rq+0x21c/0x2a8
> > [ 409.391188] distribute_cfs_runtime+0xf4/0x198
> > [ 409.395634] sched_cfs_period_timer+0x134/0x240
> > [ 409.400168] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x10c/0x3c0
> > [ 409.404527] hrtimer_interrupt+0xd4/0x250
> > [ 409.408539] tick_handle_oneshot_broadcast+0x17c/0x208
> > [ 409.413683] sp804_timer_interrupt+0x30/0x40
> >
> > If I add the following snippet the issue goes away:
If it's fine for you, I'm going to add this in a new version of the patch
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index e9fd5379bb7e..5e03be046aba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4627,11 +4627,17 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> > -
> > if (!se)
> > add_nr_running(rq, task_delta);
> >
will add similar comment as for enqueue_task_fair
+ /*
+ * The cfs_rq_throttled() breaks in the above iteration can result in
+ * incomplete leaf list maintenance, resulting in triggering the assertion
+ * below.
+ */
> > + for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> > + cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> > +
> > + list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > + }
>
> Yes make sense.
>
> > +
> > + assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> > +
> > /* Determine whether we need to wake up potentially idle CPU: */
> > if (rq->curr == rq->idle && rq->cfs.nr_running)
> > resched_curr(rq);
