Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: vruntime should normalize when switching from fair

[Wanpeng Li]

Hi Dietmar,
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 22:55, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 08/27/2018 12:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:24:48PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> >> On 08/24/2018 02:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>> On 08/17/2018 11:27 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> When rt_mutex_setprio changes a task's scheduling class to RT,
> >>>>>> we're seeing cases where the task's vruntime is not updated
> >>>>>> correctly upon return to the fair class.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Specifically, the following is being observed:
> >>>>>> - task is deactivated while still in the fair class
> >>>>>> - task is boosted to RT via rt_mutex_setprio, which changes
> >>>>>>      the task to RT and calls check_class_changed.
> >>>>>> - check_class_changed leads to detach_task_cfs_rq, at which point
> >>>>>>      the vruntime_normalized check sees that the task's state is TASK_WAKING,
> >>>>>>      which results in skipping the subtraction of the rq's min_vruntime
> >>>>>>      from the task's vruntime

> >>>>>> - later, when the prio is deboosted and the task is moved back
> >>>>>>      to the fair class, the fair rq's min_vruntime is added to
> >>>>>>      the task's vruntime, even though it wasn't subtracted earlier.

Could you point out when the fair rq's min_vruntime is added to the
task's vruntime in your *later* scenario? attach_task_cfs_rq will not
do that the same reason as detach_task_cfs_rq. fair task's
sched_remote_wakeup is false which results in vruntime will not be
renormalized in enqueue_entity.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking that is an incomplete scenario; where do we get to
> >>> TASK_WAKING.
> >>
> >> Yes there's a missing bit of context here at the beginning that the task to
> >> be boosted had already been put into TASK_WAKING.
> >
> > See, I'm confused...
> >
> > The only time TASK_WAKING is visible, is if we've done a remote wakeup
> > and it's 'stuck' on the remote wake_list. And in that case we've done
> > migrate_task_rq_fair() on it.
> >
> > So by the time either rt_mutex_setprio() or __sched_setscheduler() get
> > to calling check_class_changed(), under both pi_lock and rq->lock, the
> > vruntime_normalized() thing should be right.
> >
> > So please detail the exact scenario. Because I'm not seeing it.
>
> Using Steve's test program (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/24/686) I see the
> issue but only if the two tasks (rt_task, fair_task) run on 2 cpus which
> don't share LLC (e.g. CPU0 and CPU4 on hikey960).
>
> So the wakeup goes the TTWU_QUEUE && !share_cache (ttwu_queue_remote) path.
>
> ...
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391573: sched_waking:     comm=fair_task pid=3580 prio=120 target_cpu=004
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391580: bprint:           try_to_wake_up: try_to_wake_up: task=fair_task pid=3580 task_cpu(p)=4 p->on_rq=0
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391584: bprint:           try_to_wake_up: ttwu_queue: task=fair_task pid=3580
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391588: bprint:           try_to_wake_up: ttwu_queue_remote: task=fair_task pid=3580
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391591: bprint:           try_to_wake_up: ttwu_queue_remote: cpu=4 smp_send_reschedule
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391627: sched_pi_setprio: comm=fair_task pid=3580 oldprio=120 newprio=19
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391635: bprint:           rt_mutex_setprio: task=fair_task pid=3580 prio=120->19 queued=0 running=0 state=0x200 vruntime=46922871 cpu=4 cfs_rq->min_vruntime=7807420844
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391641: bprint:           rt_mutex_setprio: p->prio set: task=fair_task pid=3580 prio=19 queued=0 running=0 state=0x200 vruntime=46922871
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391646: bprint:           rt_mutex_setprio: queued checked: task=fair_task pid=3580 prio=19 queued=0 running=0 state=0x200 vruntime=46922871
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391652: bprint:           rt_mutex_setprio: running checked: task=fair_task pid=3580 prio=19 queued=0 running=0 state=0x200 vruntime=46922871
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391657: bprint:           rt_mutex_setprio: fair_class=0xffff000008da2c80 rt_class=0xffff000008da2d70 prev_class=0xffff000008da2c80 p->sched_class=0xffff000008da2d70 oldprio=120 p->prio=19
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391661: bprint:           detach_task_cfs_rq: task=fair_task pid=3580 cpu=4 vruntime_normalized=1
> rt_task-3579  [000] 35.391706: sched_switch:     rt_task:3579 [19] D ==> swapper/0:0 [120]
>  <idle>-0     [004] 35.391828: bprint:           ttwu_do_activate: ttwu_do_activate: task=fair_task pid=3580
>  <idle>-0     [004] 35.391832: bprint:           ttwu_do_activate: ttwu_activate: task=fair_task pid=3580
>  <idle>-0     [004] 35.391833: bprint:           ttwu_do_wakeup: ttwu_do_wakeup: task=fair_task pid=3580
>  <idle>-0     [004] 35.391834: sched_wakeup:     fair_task:3580 [19] success=1 CPU:004
>
> It doesn't happen on hikey960 when I use two cpus of the same LLC or on my
> laptop (i7-4750HQ).