Skip to content

Commit 2630cde

Browse files
WerkovPeter Zijlstra
authored andcommitted
sched/fair: Add ancestors of unthrottled undecayed cfs_rq
Since commit a7b359f ("sched/fair: Correctly insert cfs_rq's to list on unthrottle") we add cfs_rqs with no runnable tasks but not fully decayed into the load (leaf) list. We may ignore adding some ancestors and therefore breaking tmp_alone_branch invariant. This broke LTP test cfs_bandwidth01 and it was partially fixed in commit fdaba61 ("sched/fair: Ensure that the CFS parent is added after unthrottling"). I noticed the named test still fails even with the fix (but with low probability, 1 in ~1000 executions of the test). The reason is when bailing out of unthrottle_cfs_rq early, we may miss adding ancestors of the unthrottled cfs_rq, thus, not joining tmp_alone_branch properly. Fix this by adding ancestors if we notice the unthrottled cfs_rq was added to the load list. Fixes: a7b359f ("sched/fair: Correctly insert cfs_rq's to list on unthrottle") Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Odin Ugedal <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
1 parent e4e737b commit 2630cde

File tree

1 file changed

+5
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+5
-1
lines changed

kernel/sched/fair.c

Lines changed: 5 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -4936,8 +4936,12 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
49364936
/* update hierarchical throttle state */
49374937
walk_tg_tree_from(cfs_rq->tg, tg_nop, tg_unthrottle_up, (void *)rq);
49384938

4939-
if (!cfs_rq->load.weight)
4939+
/* Nothing to run but something to decay (on_list)? Complete the branch */
4940+
if (!cfs_rq->load.weight) {
4941+
if (cfs_rq->on_list)
4942+
goto unthrottle_throttle;
49404943
return;
4944+
}
49414945

49424946
task_delta = cfs_rq->h_nr_running;
49434947
idle_task_delta = cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running;

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)