lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] sched/rt: fix bad task migration for rt tasks
Date


Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 00:50:14 +0800
> Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please refer to the following scenarios.
>
> I'm not sure this is what is happening. Do you have a trace to
> back this up?
>

I don't have a trace. This is inferred from the exception log.

>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> push_rt_task
>> check is_migration_disabled(next_task)
>> task not running and
>> migration_disabled == 0
>> find_lock_lowest_rq(next_task, rq);
>> _double_lock_balance(this_rq, busiest);
>> raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq);
>> double_rq_lock(this_rq, busiest);
>> <<wait for busiest rq>>
>> <wakeup>
>
> Here's the problem I have. next_task is queued on CPU0,
> (otherwise CPU0
> would not be pushing it). As CPU0 is currently running
> push_rt_task, how
> did next_task start running to set its migrate_disable flag?

THe next_task wasn't queued on CPU0, it's queued on CPU1 in this
scenarios.

And it's because when task wakup, the rq argument is not the
current running CPU rq, it's next_task's rq
(i.e. CPU1's rq in this sample scenarios).

And you can check this with the Call trace from the crash log.

[123671.996969] Call trace:
[123671.996975] set_task_cpu+0x8c/0x108
[123671.996984] push_rt_task.part.0+0x144/0x184
[123671.996995] push_rt_tasks+0x28/0x3c
[123671.997002] task_woken_rt+0x58/0x68
[123671.997009] ttwu_do_wakeup+0x5c/0xd0
[123671.997019] ttwu_do_activate+0xc0/0xd4
[123671.997028] try_to_wake_up+0x244/0x288
[123671.997036] wake_up_process+0x18/0x24
[123671.997045] __irq_wake_thread+0x64/0x80
[123671.997056] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x110/0x124

Function ttwu_do_wakeup will lock the task's rq, not current
running
cpu rq.

>
> Even if it was woken up on another CPU and ran there, by setting
> migrate_disable, it would not be put back to CPU0, because its
> migrate_disable flag is set (if it is, then there's the bug).
>

It no needs to put it back to CPU0 for this issue, it's still on
CPU1.

> After releasing the rq lock and retaking it, we check that the
> next_task is
> still the next task on CPU0 to push.
>
>
>> task become running
>> migrate_disable();
>> <context out>
>> deactivate_task(rq, next_task, 0);
>> set_task_cpu(next_task, lowest_rq->cpu);
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(is_migration_disabled(p));
>> ---------OOPS-------------
>
> I don't see how this can happen.
>
> -- Steve

--
BRs
Schspa Shi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-08 07:05    [W:0.210 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site