summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/kernel/sched
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>2016-04-21 18:03:15 +0200
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>2016-04-28 10:28:55 +0200
commit2548d546d40c0014efdde88a53bf7896e917dcce (patch)
treefa86413f818f14c5f2ba9f27347d21d5d8ff64d2 /kernel/sched
parent02da2d72174c61988eb4456b53f405e3ebdebce4 (diff)
downloadop-kernel-dev-2548d546d40c0014efdde88a53bf7896e917dcce.zip
op-kernel-dev-2548d546d40c0014efdde88a53bf7896e917dcce.tar.gz
nohz/full, sched/rt: Fix missed tick-reenabling bug in sched_can_stop_tick()
Chris Metcalf reported a that sched_can_stop_tick() sometimes fails to re-enable the tick. His observed problem is that rq->cfs.nr_running can be 1 even though there are multiple runnable CFS tasks. This happens in the cgroup case, in which case cfs.nr_running is the number of runnable entities for that level. If there is a single runnable cgroup (which can have an arbitrary number of runnable child entries itself) rq->cfs.nr_running will be 1. However, looking at that function I think there's more problems with it. It seems to assume that if there's FIFO tasks, those will run. This is incorrect. The FIFO task can have a lower prio than an RR task, in which case the RR task will run. So the whole fifo_nr_running test seems misplaced, it should go after the rr_nr_running tests. That is, only if !rr_nr_running, can we use fifo_nr_running like this. Reported-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com> Tested-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> Cc: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> Fixes: 76d92ac305f2 ("sched: Migrate sched to use new tick dependency mask model") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160421160315.GK24771@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/sched')
-rw-r--r--kernel/sched/core.c29
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 8b489fc..d1f7149 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -596,17 +596,8 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
return false;
/*
- * FIFO realtime policy runs the highest priority task (after DEADLINE).
- * Other runnable tasks are of a lower priority. The scheduler tick
- * isn't needed.
- */
- fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
- if (fifo_nr_running)
- return true;
-
- /*
- * Round-robin realtime tasks time slice with other tasks at the same
- * realtime priority.
+ * If there are more than one RR tasks, we need the tick to effect the
+ * actual RR behaviour.
*/
if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running) {
if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running == 1)
@@ -615,8 +606,20 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
return false;
}
- /* Normal multitasking need periodic preemption checks */
- if (rq->cfs.nr_running > 1)
+ /*
+ * If there's no RR tasks, but FIFO tasks, we can skip the tick, no
+ * forced preemption between FIFO tasks.
+ */
+ fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
+ if (fifo_nr_running)
+ return true;
+
+ /*
+ * If there are no DL,RR/FIFO tasks, there must only be CFS tasks left;
+ * if there's more than one we need the tick for involuntary
+ * preemption.
+ */
+ if (rq->nr_running > 1)
return false;
return true;
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud