Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180728002409.5781-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> <ef0e1185-51d6-0707-cda4-6f2ea987b651@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <ef0e1185-51d6-0707-cda4-6f2ea987b651@linux.alibaba.com>
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:55:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVeK2VQDuahreZC2-L4eEzx0WtD8Bz=oHH68VSAiMqLGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: sync expires_seq in distribute_cfs_runtime()
To:     Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:29 PM Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Cong,
>
> On 7/28/18 8:24 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > Each time we sync cfs_rq->runtime_expires with cfs_b->runtime_expires,
> > we should sync its ->expires_seq too. However it is missing
> > for distribute_cfs_runtime(), especially the slack timer call path.
>
> I don't think it's a problem, as expires_seq will get synced in
> assign_cfs_rq_runtime().

Sure, but there is a small window during which they are not synced.
Why do you want to wait until the next assign_cfs_rq_runtime() when
you already know runtime_expires is synced?

Also, expire_cfs_rq_runtime() is called before assign_cfs_rq_runtime()
inside __account_cfs_rq_runtime(), which means the check of
cfs_rq->expires_seq is not accurate for unthrottling case if the clock
drift happens soon enough?