diff options
author | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> | 2016-04-21 18:03:15 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> | 2016-04-28 10:28:55 +0200 |
commit | 2548d546d40c0014efdde88a53bf7896e917dcce (patch) | |
tree | fa86413f818f14c5f2ba9f27347d21d5d8ff64d2 /kernel | |
parent | 02da2d72174c61988eb4456b53f405e3ebdebce4 (diff) | |
download | op-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')
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/sched/core.c | 29 |
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; |