We're going to make might_sleep() test for TASK_RUNNING, because
blocking without TASK_RUNNING will destroy the task state by setting
it to TASK_RUNNING.
There are a few occasions where its 'valid' to call blocking
primitives (and mutex_lock in particular) and not have TASK_RUNNING,
typically such cases are right before we set TASK_RUNNING anyhow.
Robustify the code by not assuming this; this has the beneficial side
effect of allowing optional code emission for fixing the above
might_sleep() false positives.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: ilya.dryomov@inktank.com
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140924082241.988560063@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
How we deal with updates to exclusive cpusets is currently broken.
As an example, suppose we have an exclusive cpuset composed of
two cpus: A[cpu0,cpu1]. We can assign SCHED_DEADLINE task to it
up to the allowed bandwidth. If we want now to modify cpusetA's
cpumask, we have to check that removing a cpu's amount of
bandwidth doesn't break AC guarantees. This thing isn't checked
in the current code.
This patch fixes the problem above, denying an update if the
new cpumask won't have enough bandwidth for SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
that are currently active.
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/5433E6AF.5080105@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Exclusive cpusets are the only way users can restrict SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
affinity (performing what is commonly called clustered scheduling).
Unfortunately, such thing is currently broken for two reasons:
- No check is performed when the user tries to attach a task to
an exlusive cpuset (recall that exclusive cpusets have an
associated maximum allowed bandwidth).
- Bandwidths of source and destination cpusets are not correctly
updated after a task is migrated between them.
This patch fixes both things at once, as they are opposite faces
of the same coin.
The check is performed in cpuset_can_attach(), as there aren't any
points of failure after that function. The updated is split in two
halves. We first reserve bandwidth in the destination cpuset, after
we pass the check in cpuset_can_attach(). And we then release
bandwidth from the source cpuset when the task's affinity is
actually changed. Even if there can be time windows when sched_setattr()
may erroneously fail in the source cpuset, we are fine with it, as
we can't perfom an atomic update of both cpusets at once.
Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Reported-by: Vincent Legout <vincent@legout.info>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Cc: Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@gmail.com>
Cc: michael@amarulasolutions.com
Cc: luca.abeni@unitn.it
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1411118561-26323-3-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Both callers of finish_task_switch() need to recalculate this_rq()
and pass it as an argument, plus __schedule() does this again after
context_switch().
It would be simpler to call this_rq() once in finish_task_switch()
and return the this rq to the callers.
Note: probably "int cpu" in __schedule() should die; it is not used
and both rcu_note_context_switch() and wq_worker_sleeping() do not
really need this argument.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141009193232.GB5408@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
In pseudo-interleaved numa_groups, all tasks try to relocate to
the group's preferred_nid. When a group is spread across multiple
NUMA nodes, this can lead to tasks swapping their location with
other tasks inside the same group, instead of swapping location with
tasks from other NUMA groups. This can keep NUMA groups from converging.
Examining all nodes, when dealing with a task in a pseudo-interleaved
NUMA group, avoids this problem. Note that only CPUs in nodes that
improve the task or group score are examined, so the loop isn't too
bad.
Tested-by: Vinod Chegu <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Vinod Chegu" <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Cc: mgorman@suse.de
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141009172747.0d97c38c@annuminas.surriel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
In order to do task placement on systems with complex NUMA topologies,
it is necessary to count the faults on nodes nearby the node that is
being examined for a potential move.
In case of a system with a backplane interconnect, we are dealing with
groups of NUMA nodes; each of the nodes within a group is the same number
of hops away from nodes in other groups in the system. Optimal placement
on this topology is achieved by counting all nearby nodes equally. When
comparing nodes A and B at distance N, nearby nodes are those at distances
smaller than N from nodes A or B.
Placement strategy on a system with a glueless mesh NUMA topology needs
to be different, because there are no natural groups of nodes determined
by the hardware. Instead, when dealing with two nodes A and B at distance
N, N >= 2, there will be intermediate nodes at distance < N from both nodes
A and B. Good placement can be achieved by right shifting the faults on
nearby nodes by the number of hops from the node being scored. In this
context, a nearby node is any node less than the maximum distance in the
system away from the node. Those nodes are skipped for efficiency reasons,
there is no real policy reason to do so.
Placement policy on directly connected NUMA systems is not affected.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: mgorman@suse.de
Cc: chegu_vinod@hp.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1413530994-9732-5-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Smaller NUMA systems tend to have all NUMA nodes directly connected
to each other. This includes the degenerate case of a system with just
one node, ie. a non-NUMA system.
Larger systems can have two kinds of NUMA topology, which affects how
tasks and memory should be placed on the system.
On glueless mesh systems, nodes that are not directly connected to
each other will bounce traffic through intermediary nodes. Task groups
can be run closer to each other by moving tasks from a node to an
intermediary node between it and the task's preferred node.
On NUMA systems with backplane controllers, the intermediary hops
are incapable of running programs. This creates "islands" of nodes
that are at an equal distance to anywhere else in the system.
Each kind of topology requires a slightly different placement
algorithm; this patch provides the mechanism to detect the kind
of NUMA topology of a system.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
[ Changed to use kernel/sched/sched.h ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: mgorman@suse.de
Cc: chegu_vinod@hp.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1413530994-9732-3-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
1) switched_to_dl() check is wrong. We reschedule only
if rq->curr is deadline task, and we do not reschedule
if it's a lower priority task. But we must always
preempt a task of other classes.
2) dl_task_timer():
Policy does not change in case of priority inheritance.
rt_mutex_setprio() changes prio, while policy remains old.
So we lose some balancing logic in dl_task_timer() and
switched_to_dl() when we check policy instead of priority. Boosted
task may be rq->curr.
(I didn't change switched_from_dl() because no check is necessary
there at all).
I've looked at this place(switched_to_dl) several times and even fixed
this function, but found just now... I suppose some performance tests
may work better after this.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1413909356.19914.128.camel@tkhai
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
While offling node by hot removing memory, the following divide error
occurs:
divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP
[...]
Call Trace:
[...] handle_mm_fault
[...] ? try_to_wake_up
[...] ? wake_up_state
[...] __do_page_fault
[...] ? do_futex
[...] ? put_prev_entity
[...] ? __switch_to
[...] do_page_fault
[...] page_fault
[...]
RIP [<ffffffff810a7081>] task_numa_fault
RSP <ffff88084eb2bcb0>
The issue occurs as follows:
1. When page fault occurs and page is allocated from node 1,
task_struct->numa_faults_buffer_memory[] of node 1 is
incremented and p->numa_faults_locality[] is also incremented
as follows:
o numa_faults_buffer_memory[] o numa_faults_locality[]
NR_NUMA_HINT_FAULT_TYPES
| 0 | 1 |
---------------------------------- ----------------------
node 0 | 0 | 0 | remote | 0 |
node 1 | 0 | 1 | locale | 1 |
---------------------------------- ----------------------
2. node 1 is offlined by hot removing memory.
3. When page fault occurs, fault_types[] is calculated by using
p->numa_faults_buffer_memory[] of all online nodes in
task_numa_placement(). But node 1 was offline by step 2. So
the fault_types[] is calculated by using only
p->numa_faults_buffer_memory[] of node 0. So both of fault_types[]
are set to 0.
4. The values(0) of fault_types[] pass to update_task_scan_period().
5. numa_faults_locality[1] is set to 1. So the following division is
calculated.
static void update_task_scan_period(struct task_struct *p,
unsigned long shared, unsigned long private){
...
ratio = DIV_ROUND_UP(private * NUMA_PERIOD_SLOTS, (private + shared));
}
6. But both of private and shared are set to 0. So divide error
occurs here.
The divide error is rare case because the trigger is node offline.
This patch always increments denominator for avoiding divide error.
Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/54475703.8000505@jp.fujitsu.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Unlocked access to dst_rq->curr in task_numa_compare() is racy.
If curr task is exiting this may be a reason of use-after-free:
task_numa_compare() do_exit()
... current->flags |= PF_EXITING;
... release_task()
... ~~delayed_put_task_struct()~~
... schedule()
rcu_read_lock() ...
cur = ACCESS_ONCE(dst_rq->curr) ...
... rq->curr = next;
... context_switch()
... finish_task_switch()
... put_task_struct()
... __put_task_struct()
... free_task_struct()
task_numa_assign() ...
get_task_struct() ...
As noted by Oleg:
<<The lockless get_task_struct(tsk) is only safe if tsk == current
and didn't pass exit_notify(), or if this tsk was found on a rcu
protected list (say, for_each_process() or find_task_by_vpid()).
IOW, it is only safe if release_task() was not called before we
take rcu_read_lock(), in this case we can rely on the fact that
delayed_put_pid() can not drop the (potentially) last reference
until rcu_read_unlock().
And as Kirill pointed out task_numa_compare()->task_numa_assign()
path does get_task_struct(dst_rq->curr) and this is not safe. The
task_struct itself can't go away, but rcu_read_lock() can't save
us from the final put_task_struct() in finish_task_switch(); this
reference goes away without rcu gp>>
The patch provides simple check of PF_EXITING flag. If it's not set,
this guarantees that call_rcu() of delayed_put_task_struct() callback
hasn't happened yet, so we can safely do get_task_struct() in
task_numa_assign().
Locked dst_rq->lock protects from concurrency with the last schedule().
Reusing or unmapping of cur's memory may happen without it.
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1413962231.19914.130.camel@tkhai
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
The race may happen when somebody is changing task_group of a forking task.
Child's cgroup is the same as parent's after dup_task_struct() (there just
memory copying). Also, cfs_rq and rt_rq are the same as parent's.
But if parent changes its task_group before it's called cgroup_post_fork(),
we do not reflect this situation on child. Child's cfs_rq and rt_rq remain
the same, while child's task_group changes in cgroup_post_fork().
To fix this we introduce fork() method, which calls sched_move_task() directly.
This function changes sched_task_group on appropriate (also its logic has
no problem with freshly created tasks, so we shouldn't introduce something
special; we are able just to use it).
Possibly, this decides the Burke Libbey's problem: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/24/456
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1414405105.19914.169.camel@tkhai
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
