Re: [PATCH] sched: use rq_lock/unlock in online_fair_sched_group
From: Phil Auld
Date: Fri Aug 09 2019 - 09:33:48 EST
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 03:03:34PM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 09:37:49AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > Enabling WARN_DOUBLE_CLOCK in /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features causes
> ISTR there were more issues; but it sure is good to start picking them
Following up on this I hit another in rt.c which looks like:
[ 156.348854] Call Trace:
[ 156.351301] <IRQ>
[ 156.353322] sched_rt_period_timer+0x124/0x350
[ 156.357766] ? sched_rt_rq_enqueue+0x90/0x90
[ 156.362037] __hrtimer_run_queues+0xfb/0x270
[ 156.366303] hrtimer_interrupt+0x122/0x270
[ 156.370403] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x140
[ 156.375022] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
[ 156.379119] </IRQ>
It looks like the same issue of not using the rq_lock* wrappers and
hence not using the pinning. From looking at the code there is at
least one potential hit in deadline.c in the push_dl_task path with
find_lock_later_rq but I have not hit that in practice.
This commit, which introduced the warning, seems to imply that the use
of the rq_lock* wrappers is required, at least for any sections that will
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Oct 3 16:53:49 2016 +0200
sched/core: Add WARNING for multiple update_rq_clock() calls
Now that we have no missing calls, add a warning to find multiple
By having only a single update_rq_clock() call per rq-lock section,
the section appears 'atomic' wrt time.
Is that the case? Otherwise we have these false positives.
I can spin up patches if so.