From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755676AbeDTP1k (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:27:40 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:38773 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755550AbeDTP1a (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:27:30 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/YkmqZfYUFXQgHcNEHS2B4xWhv4qnuhr/mSjEiGfm3oAP8aEQeGaSHEQeoYmJMAIUZmz5jTg== Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 17:27:26 +0200 From: Juri Lelli To: Kirill Tkhai Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/rt: Rework for_each_process_thread() iterations in tg_has_rt_tasks() Message-ID: <20180420152726.GJ24599@localhost.localdomain> References: <152415882713.2054.8734093066910722403.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180420092540.GG24599@localhost.localdomain> <0d7fbdab-b972-7f86-4090-b49f9315c868@virtuozzo.com> <854a5fb1-a9c1-023f-55ec-17fa14ad07d5@virtuozzo.com> <20180420141145.GI24599@localhost.localdomain> <5fee2cc2-e6de-6bc2-7644-778ef2185803@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5fee2cc2-e6de-6bc2-7644-778ef2185803@virtuozzo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 20/04/18 17:30, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > On 20.04.2018 17:11, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 20/04/18 13:06, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > >> From: Kirill Tkhai > >> > >> tg_rt_schedulable() iterates over all child task groups, > >> while tg_has_rt_tasks() iterates over all linked tasks. > >> In case of systems with big number of tasks, this may > >> take a lot of time. > >> > >> I observed hard LOCKUP on machine with 20000+ processes > >> after write to "cpu.rt_period_us" of cpu cgroup with > >> 39 children. The problem occurred because of tasklist_lock > >> is held for a long time and other processes can't do fork(). > >> > >> PID: 1036268 TASK: ffff88766c310000 CPU: 36 COMMAND: "criu" > >> #0 [ffff887f7f408e48] crash_nmi_callback at ffffffff81050601 > >> #1 [ffff887f7f408e58] nmi_handle at ffffffff816e0cc7 > >> #2 [ffff887f7f408eb0] do_nmi at ffffffff816e0fb0 > >> #3 [ffff887f7f408ef0] end_repeat_nmi at ffffffff816e00b9 > >> [exception RIP: tg_rt_schedulable+463] > >> RIP: ffffffff810bf49f RSP: ffff886537ad7d50 RFLAGS: 00000202 > >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 000000003b9aca00 RCX: ffff883e9cb4b1b0 > >> RDX: ffff887d0be43608 RSI: ffff886537ad7dd8 RDI: ffff8840a6ad0000 > >> RBP: ffff886537ad7d68 R8: ffff887d0be431b0 R9: 00000000000e7ef0 > >> R10: ffff88164fc39400 R11: 0000000000023380 R12: ffffffff81ef8d00 > >> R13: ffffffff810bea40 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff8840a6ad0000 > >> ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018 > >> --- --- > >> #4 [ffff886537ad7d50] tg_rt_schedulable at ffffffff810bf49f > >> #5 [ffff886537ad7d70] walk_tg_tree_from at ffffffff810c6c91 > >> #6 [ffff886537ad7dc0] tg_set_rt_bandwidth at ffffffff810c6dd0 > >> #7 [ffff886537ad7e28] cpu_rt_period_write_uint at ffffffff810c6eea > >> #8 [ffff886537ad7e38] cgroup_file_write at ffffffff8111cfd3 > >> #9 [ffff886537ad7ec8] vfs_write at ffffffff8121eced > >> #10 [ffff886537ad7f08] sys_write at ffffffff8121faff > >> #11 [ffff886537ad7f50] system_call_fastpath at ffffffff816e8a7d > >> > >> The patch reworks tg_has_rt_tasks() and makes it to iterate over > >> task group process list instead of iteration over all tasks list. > >> This makes the function to scale well, and reduces its execution > >> time. > >> > >> Note, that since tasklist_lock doesn't protect a task against > >> sched_class changing, we don't introduce new races in comparison > >> to that we had before. > > > > This seems to be true. However, I wonder why we are OK with current racy > > code (against tasks moving between groups). :/ > > > > Can't a task join the group while we are iterating and we miss that? > > Yes, it can, but I'm not sure either this should be considered as problem, > seeing the race design we already have. It's not a real protection, this > place is to warn a person, he does something wrong. We check for zero written > there, but really written "1" will invent the same problems. Mmm, right. :/