On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:24:39AM -0800, bseg...@google.com wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> writes:
> > +#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);
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > + put_prev_entity(cfs_rq, pse);
> > + set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> > + }
(A)
> > + /*
> > + * 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.
I'm not seeing that, so at point (A) we've completely switched over from
@prev to @p, we've put all pse until the common parent and set all se
back to @p.
So if we then do: put_prev_task_fair(rq, p), we simply undo all the
set_next_entity(se) we just did, and continue from the common parent
upwards.
> 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.
But the abort is only done after we've completely set up @p as the
current task.
Yes, completely tearing it down again is probably a waste, but given
that bandwidth enforcement should be rare and I didn't want to
complicate things even further for rare cases.
> 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.
Oh, so we allow a parent to have less runtime than the sum of all its
children?
Indeed, in that case we can miss something... we could try to call
check_cfs_rq_runtime() from the initial top-down selection loop? When
true, just put the entire stack and don't pretend to be smart?
--
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/
