Re: [PATCH] Revert "sched/deadline: Remove cpu_active_mask from cpudl_find()"
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Date: 2020-06-25 13:34:54
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, lkml
Hi, On 24/06/20 23:13, Sai Harshini Nimmala wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
The original commit 9659e1ee removes checking the cpu_active_mask while finding the best cpu to place a deadline task, citing the reason that this mask rarely changes and removing the check will give performance gains. However, on hotplugging, the cpu dying path has a brief duration between the CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU and CPUHP_AP_SCHED_STARTING hotplug states where the DL task can be scheduled on this cpu because the corresponding cpu bit in cpu->free_cpus has not been cleared yet. Without the cpu_active_mask check we could end up putting a DL task on such cpus leading to a BUG. The cpu_active_mask will be updated promptly before either of these states and will provide a more accurate check for the use case above. Signed-off-by: Puja Gupta <redacted> Signed-off-by: Sai Harshini Nimmala <redacted> --- kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c index 5cc4012..0346837 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c@@ -120,7 +120,8 @@ int cpudl_find(struct cpudl *cp, struct task_struct *p, const struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se = &p->dl; if (later_mask && - cpumask_and(later_mask, cp->free_cpus, p->cpus_ptr)) { + cpumask_and(later_mask, cp->free_cpus, p->cpus_ptr) && + cpumask_and(later_mask, later_mask, cpu_active_mask)) { return 1; } else { int best_cpu = cpudl_maximum(cp);
So, I believe the patch you want to revert only removed the condition above.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -128,6 +129,7 @@ int cpudl_find(struct cpudl *cp, struct task_struct *p, WARN_ON(best_cpu != -1 && !cpu_present(best_cpu)); if (cpumask_test_cpu(best_cpu, p->cpus_ptr) && + cpumask_test_cpu(best_cpu, cpu_active_mask) && dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, cp->elements[0].dl)) { if (later_mask) cpumask_set_cpu(best_cpu, later_mask);
Did you actually experience issues with this second part as well? I'm thinking the WARN_ON should have fired in that case, no? Thanks, Juri _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel