From 387e31300b5760169e6d3f7a9e1eeed12cc5a30b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luca Abeni Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 22:13:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Fix the update of the total -deadline utilization Now that the inactive timer can be armed to fire at the 0-lag time, it is possible to use inactive_task_timer() to update the total -deadline utilization (dl_b->total_bw) at the correct time, fixing dl_overflow() and __setparam_dl(). Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Claudio Scordino Cc: Joel Fernandes Cc: Juri Lelli Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mathieu Poirier Cc: Mike Galbraith Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Steven Rostedt Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Tommaso Cucinotta Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1495138417-6203-4-git-send-email-luca.abeni@santannapisa.it Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched/core.c | 38 ++++++++++++++------------------------ kernel/sched/deadline.c | 28 +++++++++++++--------------- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 968c655..126339d 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -2475,9 +2475,6 @@ static inline int dl_bw_cpus(int i) * allocated bandwidth to reflect the new situation. * * This function is called while holding p's rq->lock. - * - * XXX we should delay bw change until the task's 0-lag point, see - * __setparam_dl(). */ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int policy, const struct sched_attr *attr) @@ -2502,16 +2499,29 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int policy, cpus = dl_bw_cpus(task_cpu(p)); if (dl_policy(policy) && !task_has_dl_policy(p) && !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, 0, new_bw)) { + if (hrtimer_active(&p->dl.inactive_timer)) + __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw); __dl_add(dl_b, new_bw); err = 0; } else if (dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p) && !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, p->dl.dl_bw, new_bw)) { + /* + * XXX this is slightly incorrect: when the task + * utilization decreases, we should delay the total + * utilization change until the task's 0-lag point. + * But this would require to set the task's "inactive + * timer" when the task is not inactive. + */ __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw); __dl_add(dl_b, new_bw); dl_change_utilization(p, new_bw); err = 0; } else if (!dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p)) { - __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw); + /* + * Do not decrease the total deadline utilization here, + * switched_from_dl() will take care to do it at the correct + * (0-lag) time. + */ err = 0; } raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock); @@ -4020,26 +4030,6 @@ __setparam_dl(struct task_struct *p, const struct sched_attr *attr) dl_se->dl_period = attr->sched_period ?: dl_se->dl_deadline; dl_se->flags = attr->sched_flags; dl_se->dl_bw = to_ratio(dl_se->dl_period, dl_se->dl_runtime); - - /* - * Changing the parameters of a task is 'tricky' and we're not doing - * the correct thing -- also see task_dead_dl() and switched_from_dl(). - * - * What we SHOULD do is delay the bandwidth release until the 0-lag - * point. This would include retaining the task_struct until that time - * and change dl_overflow() to not immediately decrement the current - * amount. - * - * Instead we retain the current runtime/deadline and let the new - * parameters take effect after the current reservation period lapses. - * This is safe (albeit pessimistic) because the 0-lag point is always - * before the current scheduling deadline. - * - * We can still have temporary overloads because we do not delay the - * change in bandwidth until that time; so admission control is - * not on the safe side. It does however guarantee tasks will never - * consume more than promised. - */ } /* diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c index 6480a92..add9cba 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c @@ -175,8 +175,14 @@ static void task_non_contending(struct task_struct *p) if (zerolag_time < 0) { if (dl_task(p)) sub_running_bw(dl_se->dl_bw, dl_rq); - if (!dl_task(p) || p->state == TASK_DEAD) + if (!dl_task(p) || p->state == TASK_DEAD) { + struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p)); + + raw_spin_lock(&dl_b->lock); + __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw); __dl_clear_params(p); + raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock); + } return; } @@ -1004,10 +1010,16 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart inactive_task_timer(struct hrtimer *timer) rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf); if (!dl_task(p) || p->state == TASK_DEAD) { + struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p)); + if (p->state == TASK_DEAD && dl_se->dl_non_contending) { sub_running_bw(p->dl.dl_bw, dl_rq_of_se(&p->dl)); dl_se->dl_non_contending = 0; } + + raw_spin_lock(&dl_b->lock); + __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw); + raw_spin_unlock(&dl_b->lock); __dl_clear_params(p); goto unlock; @@ -1534,19 +1546,6 @@ static void task_fork_dl(struct task_struct *p) */ } -static void task_dead_dl(struct task_struct *p) -{ - struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p)); - - /* - * Since we are TASK_DEAD we won't slip out of the domain! - */ - raw_spin_lock_irq(&dl_b->lock); - /* XXX we should retain the bw until 0-lag */ - dl_b->total_bw -= p->dl.dl_bw; - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&dl_b->lock); -} - static void set_curr_task_dl(struct rq *rq) { struct task_struct *p = rq->curr; @@ -2141,7 +2140,6 @@ const struct sched_class dl_sched_class = { .set_curr_task = set_curr_task_dl, .task_tick = task_tick_dl, .task_fork = task_fork_dl, - .task_dead = task_dead_dl, .prio_changed = prio_changed_dl, .switched_from = switched_from_dl, -- 2.7.4