Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> writes:
>  static struct task_struct *
>  pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
>  {
> +     struct sched_entity *se, __maybe_unused *pse;
>       struct task_struct *p;
> -     struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
> -     struct sched_entity *se;
> +     struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
> +
> +again: __maybe_unused
> +     cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
> +
> +     if (prev) {
> +             if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED) ||
> +                 (prev->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)) {
> +                     prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> +                     prev = NULL;
> +             }
> +     }
>  
>       if (!cfs_rq->nr_running)
>               return NULL;
>  
> -     if (prev)
> -             prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> -
>       do {
>               se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
> -             set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> +             if (!prev)
> +                     set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
>               cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
>       } while (cfs_rq);
>  
>       p = task_of(se);
> -     if (hrtick_enabled(rq))
> -             hrtick_start_fair(rq, p);
>  
> -     return p;
> -}
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> +     /*
> +      * If we haven't yet done put_prev_entity and the selected task is
> +      * a different task than we started out with, try and touch the least
> +      * amount of cfs_rq trees.
> +      */
> +     if (prev) {
> +             if (prev != p) {
> +                     pse = &prev->se;
> +
> +                     while (!(cfs_rq = is_same_group(se, pse))) {
> +                             int se_depth = se->depth;
> +                             int pse_depth = pse->depth;
> +
> +                             if (se_depth <= pse_depth) {
> +                                     put_prev_entity(cfs_rq_of(pse), pse);
> +                                     pse = parent_entity(pse);
> +                             }
> +                             if (se_depth >= pse_depth) {
> +                                     set_next_entity(cfs_rq_of(se), se);
> +                                     se = parent_entity(se);
> +                             }
> +                     }
>  
> -/*
> - * Account for a descheduled task:
> - */
> -static void put_prev_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
> -{
> -     struct sched_entity *se = &prev->se;
> -     struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
> +                     put_prev_entity(cfs_rq, pse);
> +                     set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> +             }
>  
> -     for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> -             cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> -             put_prev_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> +             /*
> +              * In case the common cfs_rq got throttled, just give up and
> +              * put the stack and retry.
> +              */
> +             if (unlikely(check_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq))) {
> +                     put_prev_task_fair(rq, p);
> +                     prev = NULL;
> +                     goto again;
> +             }

This double-calls put_prev_entity on any non-common cfs_rqs and ses,
which means double __enqueue_entity, among other things. Just doing the
put_prev loop from se->parent should fix that.

However, any sort of abort means that we may have already done
set_next_entity on some children, which even with the changes to
pick_next_entity will cause problems, up to and including double
__dequeue_entity I think.

Also, this way we never do check_cfs_rq_runtime on any parents of the
common cfs_rq, which could even have been the reason for the resched to
begin with. I'm not sure if there would be any problem doing it on the
way down or not, I don't see any problems at a glance.



>       }
> +#endif
> +
> +     if (hrtick_enabled(rq))
> +             hrtick_start_fair(rq, p);
> +
> +     return p;
>  }
>  
>  /*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to