On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:05:42 +0000
Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30/12/16 12:33, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > From: Luca Abeni <luca.ab...@unitn.it>
> >
> > This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for
> > tracking active utilization: instead of decreasing it when a
> > task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the
> > "Inactive" task state of the GRUB algorithm) to decrease the
> > active utilization at the so called "0-lag time".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.ab...@unitn.it>
> > ---
>
> [...]
>
> > +static enum hrtimer_restart inactive_task_timer(struct hrtimer
> > *timer) +{
> > + struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se = container_of(timer,
> > + struct
> > sched_dl_entity,
> > +
> > inactive_timer);
> > + struct task_struct *p = dl_task_of(dl_se);
> > + struct rq_flags rf;
> > + struct rq *rq;
> > +
> > + rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> > +
> > + if (!dl_task(p) || p->state == TASK_DEAD) {
> > + if (p->state == TASK_DEAD &&
> > dl_se->dl_non_contending)
> > + sub_running_bw(&p->dl,
> > dl_rq_of_se(&p->dl)); +
> > + __dl_clear_params(p);
> > +
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > + if (dl_se->dl_non_contending == 0)
> > + goto unlock;
> > +
> > + sched_clock_tick();
> > + update_rq_clock(rq);
> > +
> > + sub_running_bw(dl_se, &rq->dl);
> > + dl_se->dl_non_contending = 0;
> > +unlock:
> > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> > + put_task_struct(p);
> > +
> > + return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> > +}
> > +
>
> [...]
>
> > static void inc_dl_deadline(struct dl_rq *dl_rq, u64 deadline)
> > @@ -934,7 +1014,28 @@ enqueue_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity
> > *dl_se, if (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP) {
> > struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
> >
> > - add_running_bw(dl_se, dl_rq);
> > + if (dl_se->dl_non_contending) {
> > + /*
> > + * If the timer handler is currently
> > running and the
> > + * timer cannot be cancelled,
> > inactive_task_timer()
> > + * will see that dl_not_contending is not
> > set, and
> > + * will do nothing, so we are still safe.
>
> Here and below: the timer callback will actually put_task_struct()
> (see above) if dl_not_contending is not set; that's why we don't need
> to do that if try_to_cancel returned -1 (or 0). Saying "will do
> nothing" is a bit misleading, IMHO.
Sorry... I originally had a bug with this put_task_struct() thing. The
bug is now (hopefully :) fixed, but I forgot to update the comment...
I'll fix it for next submission.
> > @@ -1097,6 +1198,22 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int
> > cpu, int sd_flag, int flags) }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > + rq = task_rq(p);
> > + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > + if (p->dl.dl_non_contending) {
> > + sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> > + p->dl.dl_non_contending = 0;
> > + /*
> > + * If the timer handler is currently running and
> > the
> > + * timer cannot be cancelled, inactive_task_timer()
> > + * will see that dl_not_contending is not set, and
> > + * will do nothing, so we are still safe.
> > + */
> > + if (hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&p->dl.inactive_timer)
> > == 1)
> > + put_task_struct(p);
> > + }
> > + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > +
> > out:
> > return cpu;
> > }
>
> We already raised the issue about having to lock the rq in
> select_task_rq_dl() while reviewing the previous version; did you have
> any thinking about possible solutions? Maybe simply bail out (need to
> see how frequent this is however) or use an inner lock?
Sorry; I did not come up with any good idea for avoiding to lock the
rq... I'll think about this again... The only alternative idea I have
is just to avoid changing cpu, but I do not know if it is acceptable...
Thanks,
Luca
