Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in do_idle

[luca abeni]

Hi Peter,

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:48:50 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > So, I tend to think that we might want to play safe and put some
> > higher minimum value for dl_runtime (it's currently at 1ULL <<
> > DL_SCALE). Guess the problem is to pick a reasonable value, though.
> > Maybe link it someway to HZ? Then we might add a sysctl (or
> > similar) thing with which knowledgeable users can do whatever they
> > think their platform/config can support?  
> 
> Yes, a HZ related limit sounds like something we'd want. But if we're
> going to do a minimum sysctl, we should also consider adding a
> maximum, if you set a massive period/deadline, you can, even with a
> relatively low u, incur significant delays.

I agree with this.


> And do we want to put the limit on runtime or on period ?

I think we should have a minimum allowed runtime, a maximum allowed
runtime, a minimum allowed period and a (per-user? per-control
group?) maximum allowed utilization.

I suspect having a maximum period is useless, if we already enforce a
maximum runtime.


> That is, something like:
> 
>   TICK_NSEC/2 < period < 10*TICK_NSEC

As written above I would not enforce a maximum period.


> 
> and/or
> 
>   TICK_NSEC/2 < runtime < 10*TICK_NSEC

I think (but I might be wrong) that "TICK_NSEC/2" is too large... I
would divide the tick for a larger number (how many time do we want to
allow the loop to run?)

And I think the maximum runtime should not be TICK-dependent... It is
the maximum amount of time for which we allow the dealdine task to
starve non-deadline tasks, so it should be an absolute time, not
something HZ-dependent... No?



> Hmm, for HZ=1000 that ends up with a max period of 10ms, that's far
> too low, 24Hz needs ~41ms. We can of course also limit the runtime by
> capping u for users (as we should anyway).

Regarding capping u for users: some time ago, with Juri we discussed
the idea of having per-cgroup limits on the deadline utilization... I
think this is a good idea (and if the userspace creates a cgroup per
user, this results in per-user capping - but it is more flexible in
general)



				Luca