Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:09:28 -0400 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 06/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling. |
| |
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 04:21:46PM -0400, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:28 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > > > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > Subject: [PATCH] sched: Fix CPU hotplug causing crashes in task selection logic > > > > The selection logic does not run correctly if the current CPU is not in the > > cpu_smt_mask (which it is not because the CPU is offlined when the stopper > > finishes running and needs to switch to idle). There are also other issues > > fixed by the patch I think such as: if some other sibling set core_pick to > > something, however the selection logic on current cpu resets it before > > selecting. In this case, we need to run the task selection logic again to > > make sure it picks something if there is something to run. It might end up > > picking the wrong task. > > > I am not sure if this can happen. If the other sibling sets core_pick, it > will be under the core wide lock and it should set the core_sched_seq also > before releasing the lock. So when this cpu tries, it would see the core_pick > before resetting it. Is this the same case you were mentioning? Sorry if I > misunderstood the case you mentioned..
If you have a case where you have 3 siblings all trying to enter the schedule loop. Call them A, B and C.
A picks something for B in core_pick. Now C comes and resets B's core_pick before running the mega-loop, hoping to select something for it shortly. However, C then does an unconstrained pick and forgets to set B's pick to something.
I don't know if this can really happen - but this is why I added the warning in the end of the patch. I think we should make the code more robust and handle these kind of cases.
> > Yet another issue was, if the stopper thread is an > > unconstrained pick, then rq->core_pick is set. The next time task selection > > logic runs when stopper needs to switch to idle, the current CPU is not in > > the smt_mask. This causes the previous ->core_pick to be picked again which > > happens to be the unconstrained task! so the stopper keeps getting selected > > forever. > > > I did not clearly understand this. During an unconstrained pick, current > cpu's core_pick is not set and tasks are not picked for siblings as well. > If it is observed being set in the v6 code, I think it should be a bug.
Again, it is about making the code more robust. Why should not set rq->core_pick when we pick something? As we discussed in the private discussion - we should make the code robust and consistent. Correctness is not enough, the code has to be robust and maintainable.
I think in our private discussion, you agreed with me that there is no harm in setting core_pick in this case.
> > That and there are a few more safe guards and checks around checking/setting > > rq->core_pick. To test it, I ran rcutorture and made it tag all torture > > threads. Then ran it in hotplug mode (hotplugging every 200ms) and it hit the > > issue. Now it runs for an hour or so without issue. (Torture testing debug > > changes: https://bit.ly/38htfqK ). > > > > Various fixes were tried causing varying degrees of crashes. Finally I found > > that it is easiest to just add current CPU to the smt_mask's copy always. > > This is so that task selection logic always runs on the current CPU which > > called schedule(). > > > > [...] > > cpu = cpu_of(rq); > > - smt_mask = cpu_smt_mask(cpu); > > + /* Make a copy of cpu_smt_mask as we should not set that. */ > > + cpumask_copy(&select_mask, cpu_smt_mask(cpu)); > > + > > + /* > > + * Always make sure current CPU is added to smt_mask so that below > > + * selection logic runs on it. > > + */ > > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &select_mask); > > > I like this idea. Probably we can optimize it a bit. We get here with cpu > not in smt_mask only during an offline and online(including the boot time > online) phase. So we could probably wrap it in an "if (unlikely())". Also, > during this time, it would be idle thread or some hotplug online thread that > would be runnable and no other tasks should be runnable on this cpu. So, I > think it makes sense to do an unconstrained pick rather than a costly sync > of all siblings. Probably something like: > > cpumask_copy(&select_mask, cpu_smt_mask(cpu)); > if (unlikely(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &select_mask))) { > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &select_mask); > need_sync = false; > }
Nah, more lines of code for no good no reason, plus another branch right? I'd like to leave my one liner alone than adding 4 more lines :-)
> By setting need_sync to false, we will do an unconstrained pick and will > not sync with other siblings. I guess we need to reset need_sync after > or in the following for_each_cpu loop, because the loop may set it.
I don't know if we want to add more conditions really and make it more confusing. If anything, I believe we should simplify the existing code more TBH.
> > /* > > * core->core_task_seq, core->core_pick_seq, rq->core_sched_seq > > @@ -4351,7 +4358,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf) > > > if (i == cpu && !need_sync && !p->core_cookie) { > > next = p; > > + rq_i->core_pick = next; > > + rq_i->core_sched_seq = rq_i->core->core_pick_seq; > > > I think we would not need these here. core_pick needs to be set only > for siblings if we are picking a task for them. For unconstrained pick, > we pick only for ourselves. Also, core_sched_seq need not be synced here. > We might already be synced with the existing core->core_pick_seq. Even > if it is not synced, I don't think it will cause an issue in subsequent > schedule events.
As discussed both privately and above, there is no harm and it is good to keep the code consistent. I'd rather have any task picking set core_pick and core_sched_seq to prevent confusion.
And if anything is resetting an existing ->core_pick of a sibling in the selection loop, it better set it to something sane.
> > done: > > + /* > > + * If we reset a sibling's core_pick, make sure that we picked a task > > + * for it, this is because we might have reset it though it was set to > > + * something by another selector. In this case we cannot leave it as > > + * NULL and should have found something for it. > > + */ > > + for_each_cpu(i, &select_mask) { > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_rq(i)->core_pick); > > + } > > + > I think this check will not be true always. For unconstrained pick, we > do not pick tasks for siblings and hence do not set core_pick for them. > So this WARN_ON will fire for unconstrained pick. Easily reproducible > by creating an empty cgroup and tagging it. Then only unconstrained > picks will happen and this WARN_ON fires. I guess this check after the > done label does not hold and could be removed.
As discussed above, > 2 SMT case, we don't really know if the warning will fire or not. I would rather keep the warning just in case for the future.
Thanks!
- Joel
| |